*****************************************************************
08/02/06 ****     RADIATION BULLETIN(RADBULL)       **** VOL 14.182
*****************************************************************
   RADBULL IS PRODUCED BY THE ABALONE ALLIANCE CLEARINGHOUSE
*****************************************************************
Send News Stories to news@energy-net.org with title on subject
line and first line of body

                         NUCLEAR POLICY
 
1 IRNA: No one can deprive Iranians of N-rights - President
2 US: Rutland Herald: State seeks to block wind development
3 IPS-English POLITICS-INDIA: Hamstrung on Israel by Nuclear
 
                         NUCLEAR REACTORS
 
4 US: Houston Chronicle: Amarillo developer wants to build nuclear pla
5 Czech Republic: workers fail to reconnect second unit of nuclear pla
6 US: Rutland Herald: Atomic board hearing opens doors
7 US: Brattleboro Reformer: Groups make their case against VY relicens
8 US: NRC: The Ohio State University Notice of Acceptance for Docketin
9 US: NRC: Notice of Issuance of Decommissioning Amendment for Univers
10 US: NRC: PSEG Nuclear LLC; Notice of Consideration of Issuance of 
11 US: NRC: Agency Information Collection Activities: Submission for th
12 US: NRC: Notice of Availability of Environmental Assessment and Find
13 US: NRC: Notice of Issuance of Decommissioning Amendments for Cornel
14 US: NRC: Kansas State University; Notice of Acceptance for Docketing
15 TaiwanHeadlines: Construction of no.4 nuclear power plant may be
16 US: The Mercury: Nuclear plant cuts power to cool water
17 US: Galveston County Daily News: Nuclear Energy Is Best
 
                          NUCLEAR SECURITY
 
 
                          NUCLEAR SAFETY
 
18 US: War Crimes, the Hush-Hush Energy Option, Tritium,
19 US: Spectrum: Divine Strake delayed until 2007
20 US: Las Vegas SUN: Feds delay Divine Strake explosion in Nevada to 2
21 MDN:  400,000 depleted uranium bullets stored at U.S. Kadena base in
 
                         NUCLEAR FUEL CYCLE
 
22 US: Radioactive waste alert: contact your state officials now
23 [prez_usa_exile] A cool solution to waste disposal - Reducing the "H
24 POAC: SCIENCE AND VX DISPOSAL
25 US: San Bernardino County Sun: Pollution in Rialto wells rises
26 TPR: DoE May Expand Industry Involvement In Nuke-Dump Licensing Proc
27 Reid: REID, ENSIGN CONTINUE TO PRESS FOR RELEASE OF ENVIRONMENTAL RE
28 icNorthWales: N.Wales 'high on N-waste burial list'
29 US: The Engineer Online: Waste solution
30 AU ABC: NLC, Govt split on nuclear dump plans
 
                           PEACE
 
31 [NYTr] Hiroshima, Nagasaki and N.Dakota: USA's WMDs
 
                        US DEPT. OF ENERGY
 
32 Tri-City Herald: Fluor Hanford manager to get big thanks 
33 Knox News: Heat puts TVA in a crunch
34 CH2M HILL: CH2M HILL Mound Announces Physical Completion of the Cont
35 Knox News: Munger: Another study concludes no harm from incinerator
36 DOE: DOE to Invest $250 Million in New Bioenergy Centers
37 DOE: Energy Secretary Highlights One-Year Anniversary of the 
*****************************************************************
*****************************************************************
                         FULL NEWS STORIES
*****************************************************************
*****************************************************************
 1 IRNA: No one can deprive Iranians of N-rights - President
 
, North Khorassan Prov, Aug 2, IRNA

No one can deprive the Iranian nation of its inalienable right
to access peaceful nuclear energy, President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad
said on Tuesday.

 President Ahmadinejad, who is currently on his 17th visit to
various provinces of the country since the start of his
initiative of bringing the government closer to the people, made
the remark while addressing residents of the city of Shirvan.

 "Nuclear energy is the inalienable right of the Iranian nation.

 Whoever believes he can deprive our nation of this inalienable
right is gravely mistaken.

 "Ongoing events in Lebanon made us study the European proposed
package of incentives with more precision and with open eyes,"
he said.

 He added, "We have already announced that we will respond to
the package of incentives by the time we end our study on it.

 "The Israeli attacks on Lebanon disclosed the nature of the
Zionist regime and its Western supporter more than before."
Pointing to the conspiracies of the United States, Britain and
the Zionist regime, Ahmadinejad said, "They announced that they
intend to establish a greater Middle East and change the map of
the region.

 "But we tell them that you are unable to do that. Today, world
nations are awakened."
 He praised all free and wise people throughout the world who
condemned the atrocities of the Zionist regime.

 The president said Hizbollah chief Seyed Hassan Nasrallah was
the leader of free peoples, adding, "All of us should be ready
to neutralize the ongoing conspiracies."

 He said opposition of the UN Security Council including the US
and Britain to a ceasefire in Lebanon was a dark spot for the
United Nations.

 President Ahmadinejad and his cabinet have already visited the
provinces of South Khorasan, Sistan-Baluchestan, Ilam, Qom,
Hormuzgan, Bushehr, Chahar Mahal and Bakhtiari, Lorestan,
Golestan, Kohgilouyeh and Boyer Ahmad and Khorassan Razavi,
Zanjan, Markazi, Qazvin, Hamedan and East Azarbaijan.
*****************************************************************
 2 Rutland Herald: State seeks to block wind development

Rutland Vermont News & Information
 	 	 	 	 	 
August 2, 2006 

By Vermont Press Bureau   
  
MONTPELIER � The state will try to block a large wind power
development proposed for mountaintops in Sheffield and Sutton.

Opposition by the Department of Public Service and concerns
about the project by the state's Agency of Natural Resources
could prove to be a major obstacle to the development of the
26-turbine project by UPC Vermont Wind.

About 20 of those nearly 400-foot towers would be in the town of
Sheffield, which stands to receive roughly $500,000 in taxes
from the project and has supported the idea. The rest would be
in Sutton, which is objecting to it.

"If we were to put an industrial turbine on every (suitable)
location it doesn't add up to enough energy to justify
impairment of our ridgelines," Gov. James Douglas said. "We need
to maintain our tourist economy and our quality of life."

Douglas said he opposes industrial wind projects, such as the
one proposed by UPC Vermont Wind.

But he supports projects such as small-scale wind and other
"Vermont scale" renewable energy projects, he said.

Wind power in Vermont will never be reliable nor large enough to
be able to replace base load power sources, such as Vermont
Yankee nuclear plant, he said.

Coming so soon on the heels of a rejection by the Public Service
Board of another wind project in East Haven last month, the
objections to the UPC development by the state are a worrisome
sign of the future of wind power in Vermont, renewable energy
advocates said.

According to state officials and experts, the UPC Vermont Wind
project is not in keeping with the requirements for "orderly
development of the region" and risks harming the nearby private
King George School and Crystal Lake State Park, according to
testimony filed with the Public Service Board.

The board will rule whether UPC deserves a certificate of public
good, allowing it to move forward over the objections of the
state agencies.

In large part, the department's reservations about the project
are due to lack of information provided by the applicants, said
Stephen Wark, a spokesman for the department.

"We can't offer preliminary support for the project," Wark said.
"There is still a need for more information."

State environmental officials also have raised objections to the
project, which they worry could harm bats and other animals.

"The project is large for Vermont � given its size and
distribution alone the project could have the potential to kill
a significant number of bats," according Scott Darling, to a
state biologist who submitted testimony on the project.

UPC officials did not return calls Tuesday. But in previous
filings and statements the company has argued the project would
provide more benefits to the state than harm.

And UPC Vermont Wind has done extensive testing on the impacts
of the project, which argue for its safety.

Darling acknowledged those efforts.

"The petitioner has, in fact, made a significant effort to
survey the site for bat activity to help determine the level of
risk for bat fatalities. The survey data has been very helpful �
however these surveys are imperfect, which affects my level of
confidence in the survey results," Darling said in testimony.

Other biologists from the state also are concerned about the
potential impacts of the project on moose wintering grounds and
on black bear habitat.

UPC and the biologist the company hired to evaluate the effect
of the proposed project concluded it would not significantly
impact bear habitat. "The department disagrees with this
conclusion," a state biologist said in testimony.

The board denied the proposed East Haven Windfarm project
several weeks ago after objections by the Agency of Natural
Resources, although the Department of Public Service did not
oppose the four-turbine project.

The developers had not done enough studies of the impact on
birds and bats to justify approval of the project, according to
officials. "I am disappointed, but I am not surprised" by the
state opposition to the UPC proposal, said Matthew Rubin, one of
the principals in the East Haven project.

"I think it is state policy" to discourage wind projects, Rubin
said. With most of the contracts for power held by the state's
utilities set to expire soon and new records of power use being
set in New England, the state may find itself importing more
power at higher prices, he said.

"The decision has been made to let Vermont's electric supply
come from southern New England and natural gas," Rubin said.
"The price will fluctuate with the price of natural gas and the
ratepayer will pick it up."

As for his project, if a request for reconsideration before the
Public Service Board does not succeed, he is not sure whether he
will appeal the board's ruling to court, Rubin said.

Wark said the state is reviewing each wind power proposal on its
own merits.

"I would not say the state is precluding any development of wind
power projects," he said.

Douglas supported the East Haven project, because it was started
before he was in office. It would have been a reasonably sized
"demonstration project," allowing the state to judge the impact
and benefits of wind power and it was largely hidden from view.

"I thought it would be instructive to have a demonstration
project to see what they would look like and how we liked them,"
he said. The state needs to find other alternatives, Douglas
said. "We do need to find alternative energy options."

*****************************************************************
 3 IPS-English POLITICS-INDIA: Hamstrung on Israel by Nuclear
 
Date: Wed, 02 Aug 2006 15:07:41 -0700

X-Nohoney: yes white-hard - relay H=adsl-63-203-231-61.dsl.snfc21.pacbell.net (borg.energy-net.org) [63.203.231.61]
X-Sender-Host-Address: 63.203.231.61
X-Sender-Host-Name: adsl-63-203-231-61.dsl.snfc21.pacbell.net
X-Spam-Class: HAM-VERY-WHITELIST

<x-flowed>
ROMAIPS AP WD IP NU PI=20
POLITICS-INDIA: Hamstrung on Israel by Nuclear Deal With US
Praful Bidwai=20

NEW DELHI, Aug 2 (IPS) - A major rift has opened up between the Indian go=
vernment and domestic public opinion over Israel's recent military action=
s in the Gaza Strip and its invasion of Lebanon which has led to hundreds=
  of civilian deaths over three weeks.

The Manmohan Singh government is hesitant to join the international commu=
nity in unambiguously and consistently condemning Israel. But domestic op=
inion is appalled and outraged at the brazenness of the Israeli actions, =
which continue to cause havoc in Lebanon. The Indian public was particula=
rly shocked at the bombing of Qana on Sunday, which killed 56 civilians, =
including 37 children.=20

=94The contrast between the mood expressed in the anti-Israel demonstrati=
ons held in different Indian cities over the past week, and the ambivalen=
t, hesitant and timid approach of the government could not have been any =
more stark=94, says Qamar Agha, an independent expert on West Asian affai=
rs who currently works for the Indian National Social Action Forum (INSAF=
), a non-government organization (NGO).=20

Uncharacteristically, the Indian government took three weeks to comment o=
n Israel's military attacks on Gaza and its arrest of a large number of e=
lected Palestinian legislators, including members of President Mahmoud Ab=
bas's cabinet. This followed a Hamas attack on Jun. 25, in which two sold=
iers were killed and one captured.=20

=94This does not speak well of the government. It is acting under pressur=
e from the United States and Israel. It is also keen to further expand it=
s military ties with Israel and promote the U.S.-India nuclear deal with =
the help of pro-Israel groups,'' said Agha.=20

In July 2005 India and the U.S. signed a civilian nuclear cooperation agr=
eement to legitimize nuclear weapons held by this country and lift nuclea=
r technology embargoes imposed after New Delhi first exploded a nuclear d=
evice in 1974.

India's first response to the Lebanon crisis, on Jun. 27, was to condemn =
the capture of the soldier. While commenting on the issue later, after fe=
rocious Israeli attacks, India expressed mild =94regret that Israel shoul=
d have chosen to give a military response to the capture of an Israeli so=
ldier =E0 rather than afford time and opportunity for diplomatic action=E0=
=94=20

In the past, New Delhi used to affirm its recognition of the right of a p=
eople under occupation to militarily target and arrest soldiers of the oc=
cupying army. India also made no mention of the Israeli decision to impos=
e harsh forms of collective punishment on civilians in Gaza by cutting of=
f their water and power supply. It only tepidly referred to Israeli actio=
ns which =94have affected the lives of ordinary citizens.=94=20

When several public and political figures, including Members of Parliamen=
t from the Left parties, protested against the government's reluctance to=
  call a spade a spade, New Delhi voted to reprimand Israel at the United =
Nations Human Rights Council in Geneva on Jul. 6. The vote was 29 against=
  11.=20

Although India's foreign ministry spokesman claimed the vote was =94in ke=
eping with (New Delhi's) traditional position on Palestine=94, the resolu=
tion in question did not affirm the cause of a Palestinian state and dema=
nd an immediate end to the Israeli occupation, the crux of the traditiona=
l Indian stand, to which the Singh government solemnly promised it would =
return.=20

India's hesitation in deploring the Israeli offensive in Lebanon followin=
g a Hizbollah raid on Jul. 12 on two Israeli military jeeps became eviden=
t when it described the violence as a conflict between Israel and Hizboll=
ah. India condemned =94the excessive and disproportionate military retali=
ation by Israel=94, but stopped short of calling it an invasion or aggres=
sion targeting Lebanon's civilian population.=20

=94Israel's actions had nothing to do with self-defence=94, says Agha. =94=
They were not directed mainly at Hizbollah, but also targeted non-combata=
nt civilians in Southern Lebanon. This is not a case of =91collateral dam=
age' but of conscious, intended damage. The intention is related to  what=
  Israeli defence chief Dan Holutz described as Israel's goal of =91turnin=
g the clock back by 20 years in Lebanon'=E0=94 =20

In Israeli attacks, one Indian soldier working for the United Nations Int=
erim Force in Lebanon was killed, and two others were injured. Some 12,00=
0 Indian nationals live and work in Lebanon. Indian naval vessels have be=
en trying to evacuate some of them. New Delhi's relatively tepid reaction=
  sits ill with these facts.=20

After the Qana attack last Sunday, India had no choice but to =94strongly=
=94 condemn =94the continued irresponsible and indiscriminate bombing of =
Lebanon by the Israeli military, ignoring calls for restraint. Particular=
ly outrageous is the bombing this morning of a building in Qana in south =
Lebanon.=94 But the tone of this statement was much milder than the unani=
mous resolution passed in the Lower House of the Indian Parliament on Jul=
. 31, which called =94for an immediate and unconditional ceasefire=94 and=
  called for =94providing humanitarian relief to the victims of this tragi=
c conflict.=94


Even more important than such differences of tone is the Indian governmen=
t's announcement that it is going ahead with its first-ever joint venture=
  with Israel to manufacture =94cargo ammunition.=94 This collaboration be=
tween Indian ordinance factories and Israel Military Industries, a public=
-sector armaments firm, is the first case of foreign investment in Indian=
  defence production, outside Russia and the former Soviet Union. =20

Simultaneously, the Indian military selectively briefed journalists on th=
e =94great importance=94 of the Israel-India military relationship. Israe=
l has emerged as India's second largest supplier of arms and ammunition, =
worth 900 million US dollars a year. (Russia is still the largest, at 1.5=
  billion dollars).=20

Recently, India and Israel entered into an agreement for the purchase of =
the advanced =94Phalcon=94 airborne warning and control system, which can=
  detect cruise missiles and low-flying aircraft earlier than ground-based=
  radars. India's armed forces have acquired military technology from Isra=
el in many areas ranging from unmanned aerial vehicles, radars and therma=
l imagers, to missiles, anti-missile defence and electronic warfare syste=
ms.=20

=94Regrettably, this military purchase relationship is now interfering wi=
th India's independent foreign policy=94, says Agha. =94This is most unfo=
rtunate for India's sovereign options=94.=20

Another reason why New Delhi is reluctant to criticise Israel's invasion =
of Lebanon unambiguously and categorically is its dependence on and close=
  collaboration with the Zionist-Israel lobby in the U.S., represented by =
groups like the American Jewish Committee and American-Israel Political A=
ction Committee.=20

=94Central to this collaboration=94, says Anil Chowdhary of the Coalition=
  for Nuclear Disarmament and Peace in New Delhi, =94is India's hectic lob=
bying to get the nuclear cooperation deal with the U.S. approved by Congr=
ess. The AJC proudly boasts that it is actively helping India swing opini=
on on Capitol Hill in favour of the deal. Clearly, Indian foreign policy =
has become a prisoner of the nuclear agreement.'' (END/IPS/AP/WD/IP/PI/NU=
/PB/RDR/06)=20



=20
=3D 08021335 ORP005
NNNN

</x-flowed>
*****************************************************************
 4 Houston Chronicle: Amarillo developer wants to build nuclear plant
 
Chron.com | 

Aug. 1, 2006, 11:04PM
 
Associated Press [Advertisement] --> 

AMARILLO � An Amarillo developer is interested in bringing a
nuclear power plant to this Panhandle city. 

Amarillo Power is proposing the plant that, pending regulatory
approval, could be completed and online within a decade,
according to a copyrighted story in today's Amarillo-Globe News. 

The proposal calls for a two-unit, 2,700-megawatt advanced
boiled water reactor designed by General Electric, documents
obtained by the newspaper through the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory
Commission and other sources show. 

A megawatt is enough power to serve between 700 and 1,000 homes. 

Amarillo Power is controlled by George Chapman, who did not
immediately return a phone call seeking comment Tuesday. 

Though no location was disclosed in the documents, information
in them indicated the "selection of the preferred site" would be
made in the near future. 

The Amarillo area has long been home to Pantex, the nation's
only nuclear weapons assembly and disassembly facility. 

Tom Smith, director of the Texas office of Public Citizen, did
not immediately return a call seeking comment about the proposed
venture. 

The price tag for the nuclear power plant is unknown, but a
similar proposal to add 2,700 megawatts at a South Texas Project
nuclear power plant is projected to cost $5.2 billion for two GE
reactors, according to Nucleonics Week newsletter. Last month,
Princeton, N. J.-based NRG Energy Inc. announced in a news
release that it had filed a letter of intent with the commission
to increase the megawatts at the South Texas plant in Bay City. 

That nuclear plant has been providing power to more than 1
million homes in southeast and south central Texas since Unit 1
went into service in August 1988. The second unit began
producing power 10 months later. 

On Monday, commission spokesman Dave McIntyre confirmed that
Amarillo Power notified the federal agency of its plans in
March, but asked the agency to keep the proposal confidential,
which federal regulations allow. 

Within the past week, Amarillo Power sent the commission a
letter saying it no longer considered the information
proprietary. 

Before it obtains a license from the commission, Amarillo Power
will seek financing to build the plant, documents show. Federal
law requires the commission ensure a company meets financial
qualifications to construct and operate a nuclear power plant. 

*****************************************************************
 5 Czech Republic: workers fail to reconnect second unit of nuclear plant - 

Pravda.Ru
 
08/02/2006 12:51     Source:     

The automatic security system shut the turbine early Wednesday 
after the temperature rose a couple of degrees, said Milan 
Nebesar, a Temelin nuclear plant spokesman. 

The plant's second unit was disconnected from the grid Monday
because of an oil leak from the turbine. The fault was in the
non-nuclear part of the plant's second unit and posed no threat
to nuclear security, the AP reports.

The plant's first unit has been off the grid since June due to
annual refueling, Nebesar said. 

  C 1999-2006. �PRAVDA.Ru�. When reproducing our materials in

  



*****************************************************************
 6 Rutland Herald: Atomic board hearing opens doors

Rutland Vermont News & Information
 	 	 	 	 	 
August 2, 2006 

By DANIEL BARLOW Southern Vermont Bureau   

BRATTLEBORO � The Atomic Safety and Licensing Board began a
two-day hearing in Brattleboro on Tuesday to review 10 concerns
submitted by groups with concerns over Entergy Vermont Nuclear's
plans to extend the operating license of the Vernon reactor.

The Vermont Department of Public Service, the Massachusetts
Attorney General's Office and nuclear watchdog group the New
England Coalition spent close to seven hours at Brattleboro
Union High School explaining why their concerns should be heard.

Entergy, the owner of Vermont Yankee nuclear power plant, is
asking the ASLB, a quasi-judicial arm of the Nuclear Regulatory
Commission, permission to operate the plant for an additional 20
years past 2012, the end of its current operating license.

But the three intervenor groups, plus the Vermont town of
Marlboro, have raised concerns with the license extension,
including possible environmental effects of storing additional
spent fuel on site, and the safety of some plant materials if it
operates longer than originally intended.

The ASLB is not in Brattleboro this week to judge the merits of
the concerns, however, only if they meet the rigorous federal
standards to be considered in the ongoing process to review
Entergy's request, according to ASLB Spokesman Diane Screnci.

The panel, which consists of three judges, will issue a written
decision in the next several months addressing each of the
possible concerns and showing prior decisions or studies they
relied on to either accept or dismiss them, she said.

The New England Coalition has filed six concerns, raising issues
such as how the license extension would affect the Connecticut
River, the body of water into which the plant discharges cooling
water. The Massachusetts Attorney General has filed a single
contention and the state of Vermont has filed three claims,
including the effect of aging concrete at the plant essential to
keeping radiation contained.

ASLB Chairman Alex Karlin asked pointed and often-difficult
questions to the three petitioners and Entergy attorneys during
the proceedings Tuesday, making it difficult to ascertain how
the panel might rule later on the issues.

One major issue Tuesday afternoon was the effect a longer plant
lifespan would have on safety at the Vernon reactor, including
on non-safety materials essential to securing the facility.

Anthony Roisman, a New Hampshire lawyer working with the state
of Vermont on the relicensing issue, said "age management" was
vital for nuclear power plants following the Sept. 11 terrorist
attacks.

The possibility of terrorists gaining access to the facility
because of the aging of building materials is something the ASLB
should consider in its review, he said.

"The world changed after 9/11," he said. "The consideration of
safeguards needs to be considered in the licensing process."

But an attorney with Entergy disagreed, citing several prior NRC
rulings showing that "safeguards on equipment" falls outside the
authority of the ASLB's license review.

"This is an issue that is not within the scope of the license
renewal because it is one that is commonly being managed," he
said.

The hearing will resume at 8:30 a.m. today in the multipurpose
room at the high school. The panel has four more contentions or
concerns to review from the New England Coalition, and is
expected to wrap up by noon.

*****************************************************************
 7 Brattleboro Reformer: Groups make their case against VY relicensing

  By ANDY ROSEN, Reformer Staff  

Wednesday, August 2 BRATTLEBORO -- Groups that have objected to
Vermont Yankee's request to extend its operating license by 20
years got a chance to defend their opposition on Tuesday. 

The Atomic Safety and Licensing Board, a quasi-judicial division
of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, is in town this week to
discuss concerns, raised by several groups, over the plant's
proposed extension. 

The three-judge panel spent nearly seven hours questioning
representatives from the Massachusetts Attorney General's
office, the Vermont Department of Public Service and the nuclear
watchdog New England Coalition. 

Those parties, along with the Town of Marlboro, have all asked
to extend an additional level of review to Vermont Yankee's
relicensing application by filing contentions with the board. 

The meeting, which will be continued today at 8:30 a.m. at
Brattleboro Union High School, was intended to help the ASLB
members learn more about the contentions. 

If the board accepts any of the concerns, it will open hearings
to decide if they are serious enough to block or impose
additional conditions on the relicensing. 

Vermont Yankee's operating license is set to expire in March,
2012. The plant filed for the extension in January. 

This week's meetings don't include discussion of the merits of
the contentions. In fact, board members avoided discussion of
whether they would hold up in the hearing process. 

Instead, the discussion centered around whether the objections
are admissible. The ASLB has firm rules about what constitutes a
valid contention. 

On Tuesday, the parties were asked to show that they've met
those requirements. They're required to show that their concerns
are within the scope of the investigation, and provide specific
facts, supported by expert opinion. During the hearing, the
parties outlined reasons why their contentions should be
accepted. After that, NRC and Vermont Yankee officials got a
chance to respond. 

The town of Marlboro went first. Officials there have asked the
ASLB to require that the town be included Vermont Yankee's
emergency planning zone under any new license. 

However, the ASLB decided that it doesn't need any more
information to rule on that contention, so Dan MacArthur, the
town's emergency planning director, used his time to ask that
Marlboro be included as an interested party in any future ASLB
relicensing hearings. 

Next came the state of Massachusetts. The Attorney General's
office there is arguing that the plant and NRC haven't fully
considered the potential environmental effects of another 20
years of storage in the plant's spent fuel pool. 

The Department of Public Service followed with a contention
relating to extended storage of spent fuel at Vermont Yankee.
The department argued that there's no assurance that new waste
created during the extension period will be transferred off-site
in the foreseeable future. 

Since contentions are required to be site-specific, the issues
of spent fuel storage don't generally fall under ASLB authority.
Officials from Entergy and the NRC both argued that those
contentions should not be admitted. 

The states both said there were issues that were specific to
Vermont Yankee that could be addressed under the relicensing
process, and contain new information that hasn't been considered
before. 

The Department of Public Service followed that discussion with
another contention, this one having to do with the way the plant
intends to monitor the aging of concrete that helps contain
radiation at the plant. 

Department officials are arguing that the plant didn't properly
calculate the temperatures that the concrete might reach, which
would change the way it had to be monitored. 

NRC and Vermont Yankee officials responded by taking issue with
the state's calculations. 

Finally, the department discussed a third contention about the
scope of the self-examination that the plant conducted for its
application. The department is arguing that some systems that
are not related to plant safety should be examined because if
they fail, they may affect plant safety. 

The department did not identify specific components, but said
they were security-related, and may be material in terms of
malicious tampering or terrorism. 

In reply, plant and NRC officials maintained that the scope of
the relicensing investigation is not required to take security
systems into account. 

The New England Coalition finished the day by discussing two of
its contentions. One argued that Vermont Yankee hasn't fully
explored the environmental effect of discharging cooling water
into the Connecticut River, which can raise the water
temperature. 

Plant officials argued that since the plant has a discharge
permit from the state, no further review is required. But ASLB
members questioned that, since the plant's permit is under
appeal. 

The final contention discussed was the coalition's argument
that, in its application, Vermont Yankee didn't give enough
detail about how it planned to manage aging metal that may
fatigue during the extended operation. 

An attorney for the plant argued that the plant plans to outline
a process for monitoring the metal. 

Andy Rosen can be reached at or (802) 254-2311, ext. 275. 

� (802) 254-2311
� 62 Black Mountain Road
� Brattleboro, VT 05301-9242 	   	 	
*****************************************************************
 8 NRC: The Ohio State University Notice of Acceptance for Docketing of 
 
                        FR Doc E6-12439 
[Federal Register: August 2, 2006 (Volume 71, Number 148)] 
[Notices] [Page 43818-43819] From the Federal Register Online via 
GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov] [DOCID:fr02au06-118] [[Page 
43818]]
 
the Application and Notice of Opportunity for Hearing Regarding 
Renewal of the Ohio State University Research Reactor Facility 
License No. R-75 for an Additional 20-Year Period The Nuclear 
Regulatory Commission (NRC or the Commission) is considering an 
application for the renewal of Facility License No. R- 75, which 
authorizes the Ohio State University (OSU) (the licensee) to 
operate the Ohio State University Research Reactor (OSURR) at 500 
kilowatts thermal power. The renewed license would authorize the 
applicant to operate the OSURR for an additional 20-years beyond 
the period specified in the current license. The current license 
for the OSURR expired on February 3, 2000.
 
On December 15, 1999, and supplemented on August 21, 2002, the 
Commission's staff received an application from OSU filed 
pursuant to 10 CFR Part 50.51(a), to renew Facility License No. 
R-75 for the OSURR. Because the license renewal application was 
filed in a timely manner in accordance with 10 CFR 2.109, the 
license will not be deemed to have expired until the license 
renewal application has been finally determined.
 
The Commission's staff has determined that OSU has submitted 
sufficient information in accordance with 10 CFR 50.33 and 50.34 
that the application is acceptable for docketing. The current 
Docket No. 50- 150 for Facility License No. R-75, will be 
retained. The docketing of the renewal application does not 
preclude requesting additional information as the review 
proceeds, nor does it predict whether the Commission will grant 
or deny the application. Prior to a decision to renew the 
license, the Commission will have made findings required by the 
Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended (the Act), and the 
Commission's rules and regulations.
 
Within thirty (30) days after the date of publication of this 
Federal Register Notice, the applicant may file a request for a 
hearing, and any person whose interest may be affected by this 
proceeding and who wishes to participate as a party in the 
proceeding must file a written request for a hearing and a 
petition for leave to intervene with respect to the renewal of 
the license. Requests for a hearing and a petition for leave to 
intervene shall be filed in accordance with the Commission's 
``Rules of Practice for Domestic Licensing Proceedings'' in 10 
CFR Part 2. Interested persons should consult a current copy of 
10 CFR 2.309, which is available at the Commission's Public 
Document Room (PDR), located at One White Flint North, 11555 
Rockville Pike (first floor), Rockville, Maryland 20852 and is 
accessible from the Agency Public Electronic Reading Room on the 
Internet at the NRC Web site, http://www.nrc.gov/ reading-rm/doc- 
collections/cfr. Persons who do not have access to the NRC web 
site or who encounter problems in accessing the documents located 
in the Electronic Reading Room should contact the NRC's PDR 
reference staff at 1-800-397-4209, or by email at pdr@nrc.gov. If 
a request for a hearing or a petition for leave to intervene is 
filed within the 30-day period, the Commission or a presiding 
officer designated by the Commission or by the Chief 
Administrative Judge of the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board 
Panel will rule on the request and/or petition; and the Secretary 
or the Chief Administrative Judge of the Atomic Safety and 
Licensing Board will issue a notice of a hearing or an 
appropriate order.
 
In the event that no request for a hearing or petition for leave 
to intervene is filed within the 30-day period, the NRC may, upon 
completion of its evaluations and upon making the findings 
required under 10 CFR Parts 50 and 51, renew the license without 
further notice.
 
As required by 10 CFR 2.309, a petition for leave to intervene 
shall set forth with the particular interest of the petitioner in 
the proceeding, and how that interest may be affected by the 
results of the proceeding. The petition must specifically explain 
the reasons why intervention should be permitted with particular 
reference to the following factors: (1) The nature of the 
requestor's/petitioner's right under the Atomic Energy Act to be 
made a party to the proceeding; (2) the nature and extent of the 
requestor's/petitioner's property, financial, or other interest 
in the proceeding; and (3) the possible effect of any decision or 
order which may be entered in the proceeding on the 
requestor's/petitioner's interest. The petition must also set 
forth the specific contentions which the petitioner/requestor 
seeks to have litigated at the proceeding.
 
Each contention must consist of a specific statement of the issue 
of law or fact to be raised or controverted. In addition, the 
requestor/petitioner shall provide a brief explanation of the 
bases of each contention and a concise statement of the alleged 
facts or the expert opinion that supports the contention on which 
the requestor/ petitioner intends to rely in proving the 
contention at the hearing. The requestor/petitioner must also 
provide references to those specific sources and documents of 
which the requestor/petitioner is aware and on which the 
requestor/petitioner intends to rely to establish those facts or 
expert opinion. The requestor/petitioner must provide sufficient 
information to show that a genuine dispute exists with the 
applicant on a material issue of law or fact.\1\ Contentions 
shall be limited to matters within the scope of the action under 
consideration. The contention must be one that, if proven, would 
entitle the requestor/ petitioner to relief. A 
requestor/petitioner who fails to satisfy these requirements with 
respect to at least one contention will not be permitted to 
participate as a party.
 
----------------------------------------------------------------- 
---------- \1\ To the extent that the applications contain 
attachments and supporting documents that are not publicly 
available because they are asserted to contain safeguards or 
proprietary information, petitioners desiring access to this 
information should contact the applicant or applicant's counsel 
and discuss the need for a protective order.
 
----------------------------------------------------------------- 
---------- Each contention shall be given a separate numeric or 
alpha designation within one of the following groups: 1. 
Technical--primarily concerns/issues relating to technical and/ 
or health and safety matters discussed or referenced in the 
applicant's safety analysis for the OSURR license renewal 
application.
 
2. Environmental--primarily concerns issues relating to matters 
discussed or referenced in the Environmental Report for the 
license renewal application.
 
3. Miscellaneous--does not fall into one of the categories 
outlined above.
 
As specified in 10 CFR 2.309, if two or more 
requestors/petitioners seek to co-sponsor a contention, the 
requestors/petitioners shall jointly designate a representative 
who shall have the authority to act for the 
requestors/petitioners with respect to that contention.
 
If a requestor/petitioner seeks to adopt the contention of 
another sponsoring requestor/petitioner, the requestor/petitioner 
who seeks to adopt the contention must either agree that the 
sponsoring requestor/ petitioner shall act as the representative 
with respect to that contention, or jointly designate with the 
sponsoring requestor/ petitioner a representative who shall have 
the authority to act for the requestors/petitioners with respect 
to that contention.
 
Those permitted to intervene become parties to the proceeding, 
subject to any limitations in the order granting leave to 
intervene, and have the opportunity to
 
[[Page 43819]] participate fully in the conduct of the hearing. A 
request for a hearing or a petition for leave to intervene must 
be filed by: (1) First class mail addressed to the Office of the 
Secretary of the Commission, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, 
Washington, DC 20555- 0001, Attention: Rulemaking and 
Adjudications Staff; (2) courier, express mail, and expedited 
delivery services: Office of the Secretary, Sixteenth Floor, One 
White Flint North, 11555 Rockville Pike, Rockville, Maryland 
20852, Attention: Rulemaking and Adjudications Staff; (3) E-mail 
addressed to the Office of the Secretary, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory 
Commission, HEARINGDOCKET@NRC.GOV; or (4) facsimile transmission 
addressed to the Office of the Secretary, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory 
Commission, Washington, DC, Attention: Rulemakings and 
Adjudications Staff at 301-415-1101, verification number is 
301-415- 1966. A copy of the request for hearing and petition for 
leave to intervene must also be sent to the Office of the General 
Counsel, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 
20555-0001, and it is requested that copies be transmitted either 
by means of facsimile transmission to 301-415-3725 or by e-mail 
to OGCMailCenter@nrc.gov. A copy of the request for hearing and 
petition for leave to intervene should also be sent to the 
licensee. The licensee's contact for this is Dr. William A. 
Baeslack, III, Dean, College of Engineering, 142A Hitchcock Hall, 
The Ohio State University, 2070 Neil Avenue, Columbus, OH 43210.
 
Non-timely requests and/or petitions and contentions will not be 
entertained absent a determination by the Commission, the 
presiding officer, or the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board that 
the petition, request and/or contentions should be granted based 
on a balancing of the factors specified in 10 CFR 
2.309(c)(1)(i)-(viii). Detailed guidance which the NRC uses to 
review applications for the renewal of non-power reactor licenses 
can be found in the document NUREG-1537, entitled ``Guidelines 
for Preparing and Reviewing Applications for the Licensing of 
Non-Power Reactors,'' can be obtained from the Commission?s PDR. 
The NRC maintains an Agencywide Documents Access and Management 
System (ADAMS), which provides text and image files of NRC's 
public documents. The detailed review guidance (NUREG- 1537) may 
be accessed through the NRC's Public Electronic Reading Room on 
the Internet at http://www.nrc.gov/ reading-rm/adams.html under 
ADAMS accession number ML042430055 for part one and ML042430048 
for part two. Copies of the application to renew the facility 
license for the OSURR are available for public inspection at the 
Commission?s PDR, located at One White Flint North, 11555 
Rockville Pike (first floor), Rockville, Maryland, 20855-2738. 
The initial application also may be accessed through the NRC's 
Public Electronic Reading Room, at the address mentioned above, 
under ADAMS accession number ML053400287 (Redacted Version). 
Persons who do not have access to ADAMS, or if there are problems 
in accessing the documents located in ADAMS, may contact the NRC 
Public Document Room Reference staff at 1-800-397-4209, 
301-415-4737, or by e-mail to pdr@nrc.gov. Dated at Rockville, 
Maryland, this 5th day of June 2006.
 
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
 
Brian E. Thomas, Branch Chief, Research and Test Reactors Branch, 
Division of Policy and Rulemaking, Office of Nuclear Reactor 
Regulation.
 
[FR Doc. E6-12439 Filed 8-1-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7590-01-P

 
*****************************************************************
 9 NRC: Notice of Issuance of Decommissioning Amendment for University
 
                        FR Doc E6-12441 
[Federal Register: August 2, 2006 (Volume 71, Number 148)] 
[Notices] [Page 43821] From the Federal Register Online via GPO 
Access [wais.access.gpo.gov] [DOCID:fr02au06-120]                         
 
of Michigan Ford Nuclear Reactor The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory 
Commission (NRC) is noticing the approval of the University of 
Michigan decommissioning plan (DP) by amendment to the Facility 
Operating License for the Ford Nuclear Reactor (FNR).
 
The FNR is located in the Phoenix Memorial Laboratory on the 
North Campus of the University in Ann Arbor, Michigan. The 
reactor was licensed to operate at 2 Megawatt thermal power. 
After the initial startup of the FNR in 1957, the reactor ceased 
operations on July 3, 2003.
 
The licensee submitted the FNR DP to the NRC for review and 
approval in a letter dated June 8, 2004, as supplemented on June 
23, 2004, January 5, 2006 and January 10, 2006. The NRC approved 
the DP by Amendment No. 50 to the FNR Operating License No. R-28 
on June 22, 2006.
 
A ``Notice and Solicitation of Comments Pursuant to 10 CFR 
20.1405 and 10 CFR 50.82(b)(5) Concerning Proposed Action to 
Decommission the University of Michigan Ford Nuclear Reactor'' 
was published in the Federal Register on September 8, 2004 (69 FR 
54326-54327) and in The Ann Arbor News on September 9, 2004. On 
June 7, 2006, the NRC staff consulted with the Environmental 
Coordinator for the City of Ann Arbor, Michigan. No comments were 
received. A copy of the license amendment approving the 
University of Michigan's proposed decommissioning plan is 
available for public inspection at the Commission's Public 
Document Room (PDR), located at One White Flint North, 11555 
Rockville Pike (first floor), Rockville, Maryland, 20855-2738. 
The NRC maintains an Agencywide Documents Access and Management 
System (ADAMS), which provides text and image files of NRC's 
public documents. The amendment may be accessed electronically 
from the ADAMS Public Electronic Reading Room on the Internet at 
the NRC Web site, http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/adams.html under 
ADAMS accession number ML061220260. Persons who do not have 
access to ADAMS, or have problems in accessing the documents 
located in ADAMS, may contact the NRC PDR Reference staff by 
phone at 1-800-397-4209, 301- 415-4737, or by e-mail to 
pdr@nrc.gov. Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this June 30, 2006.
 
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
 
Brian E. Thomas, Branch Chief, Research and Test Reactors Branch, 
Division of Policy and Rulemaking, Office of Nuclear Reactor 
Regulation.
 
[FR Doc. E6-12441 Filed 8-1-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7590-01-P

 
*****************************************************************
 10 NRC: PSEG Nuclear LLC; Notice of Consideration of Issuance of 
 
                        FR Doc E6-12442 
[Federal Register: August 2, 2006 (Volume 71, Number 148)] 
[Notices] [Page 43819-43821] From the Federal Register Online via 
GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov] [DOCID:fr02au06-119]                         
 
Amendments to Facility Operating Licenses, Proposed No 
Significant Hazards Consideration Determination, and Opportunity 
for a Hearing The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC or the 
Commission) is considering issuance of amendments to Facility 
Operating License Nos. DPR-70 and DPR-75 issued to PSEG Nuclear 
LLC (the licensee) for operation of the Salem Nuclear Generating 
Station (Salem), Unit Nos. 1 and 2, located in Salem County, NJ.
 
The proposed amendments would revise the Technical Specifications 
(TSs) to delete Surveillance Requirement (SR) 4.9.2.b, which 
requires performance of a channel functional test (CFT) of each 
source range neutron flux monitor within 8 hours prior to the 
initial start of core alterations. An associated administrative 
change would renumber current SR 4.9.2.c as SR 4.9.2.b. The 
amendments would also eliminate the restriction in SRs 4.10.3.2 
and 4.10.4.2 that the CFTs of the intermediate and power range 
monitors be performed within 12 hours prior to initiating physics 
tests. The amendments would also make changes to TS Table 4.3-1 
to make the SRs on the above instruments better aligned with 
NUREG-1431, ``Standard Technical Specifications, Westinghouse 
Plants,'' and with Technical Specification Task Force Traveler 
108, ``Eliminate the 12 hour [Channel Operational Test] on power 
range and intermediate range channels for Physics Test 
Exceptions.'' Specifically, the frequency of the CFTs for the 
intermediate range, source range, and power range monitors would 
be changed to be more consistent with NUREG-1431.
 
Before issuance of the proposed license amendments, the 
Commission will have made findings required by the Atomic Energy 
Act of 1954, as amended (the Act), and the Commission's 
regulations.
 
The Commission has made a proposed determination that the 
amendment request involves no significant hazards consideration. 
Under the Commission's regulations in Title 10 of the Code of 
Federal Regulations (10 CFR), Section 50.92, this means that 
operation of the facility in accordance with the proposed 
amendments would not (1) Involve a significant increase in the 
probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated; 
(2) create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident 
from any accident previously evaluated; or (3) involve a 
significant reduction in a margin of safety. As required by 10 
CFR 50.91(a), the licensee has provided its analysis of the issue 
of no significant hazards consideration, which is presented 
below: 1. Does the proposed change involve a significant increase 
in the probability or consequences of an accident previously 
evaluated? Response: No The proposed changes do not affect the 
design, operational characteristics, function, or reliability of 
the source range, intermediate range, or power range monitors. A 
channel functional test for the source range, intermediate range, 
or power range monitors will continue to be performed at a 
frequency that has been determined to be sufficient for 
verification that the monitors are properly functioning. The 
proposed changes eliminate extraneous and unnecessary performance 
of a channel functional test for the source range, intermediate 
range, or power range monitors. A channel functional test for the 
source range, intermediate range, or power range monitors is not 
a precursor to, or assumed to be an initiator of any analyzed 
accident. Therefore, these proposed changes do not involve a 
significant increase in the probability of an accident.
 
The consequences of accidents previously evaluated in the Updated 
Final Safety Analysis Report are unaffected by the proposed 
changes because no change to any
 
[[Page 43820]] equipment response or accident mitigation scenario 
has resulted.
 
The proposed changes will have no adverse effect on the 
availability, operability, or performance of the safety-related 
systems and components assumed to actuate in the event of a 
design basis accident or transient. Because the source range, 
intermediate range, and power range monitors will remain capable 
of performing their design function, the proposed changes do not 
involve a significant increase in the consequences of an accident 
previously evaluated.
 
Therefore, the proposed changes do not involve a significant 
increase in the probability or consequences of an accident 
previously evaluated.
 
2. Does the proposed change create the possibility of a new or 
different kind of accident from any accident previously 
evaluated? Response: No.
 
The proposed changes do not create the possibility of a new or 
different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated 
in the Updated Final Safety Analysis Report. No new accident 
scenarios, failure mechanisms, or limiting single failures are 
introduced as a result of the proposed changes. Specifically, no 
new hardware is being added to the plant as part of the proposed 
change, no existing equipment design or function is being 
modified, and no significant changes in operations are being 
introduced. No new equipment performance burdens are imposed.
 
Therefore, the proposed changes do not create the possibility of 
a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously 
evaluated.
 
3. Does the proposed change involve a significant reduction in a 
margin of safety? Response: No.
 
The proposed changes will not alter any assumptions, initial 
conditions, or results of any accident analyses. The ability of 
operators to monitor the reactor power level during all operating 
conditions and modes of operation with the source range, 
intermediate range, or power range monitors is unchanged by these 
proposed changes. Therefore, the proposed changes do not involve 
a significant reduction in a margin of safety.
 
The NRC staff has reviewed the licensee's analysis and, based on 
this review, it appears that the three standards of 10 CFR 
50.92(c) are satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff proposes to 
determine that the amendment request involves no significant 
hazards consideration.
 
The Commission is seeking public comments on this proposed 
determination. Any comments received within 30 days after the 
date of publication of this notice will be considered in making 
any final determination.
 
Normally, the Commission will not issue the amendment until the 
expiration of 60 days after the date of publication of this 
notice. The Commission may issue the license amendment before 
expiration of the 60- day period provided that its final 
determination is that the amendment involves no significant 
hazards consideration. In addition, the Commission may issue the 
amendment prior to the expiration of the 30- day comment period 
should circumstances change during the 30-day comment period such 
that failure to act in a timely way would result, for example, in 
derating or shutdown of the facility. Should the Commission take 
action prior to the expiration of either the comment period or 
the notice period, it will publish in the Federal Register a 
notice of issuance. Should the Commission make a final No 
Significant Hazards Consideration Determination, any hearing will 
take place after issuance. The Commission expects that the need 
to take this action will occur very infrequently.
 
Written comments may be submitted by mail to the Chief, Rules and 
Directives Branch, Division of Administrative Services, Office of 
Administration, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, 
DC 20555-0001, and should cite the publication date and page 
number of this Federal Register notice. Written comments may also 
be delivered to Room 6D59, Two White Flint North, 11545 Rockville 
Pike, Rockville, Maryland, from 7:30 a.m. to 4:15 p.m. Federal 
workdays. Documents may be examined, and/or copied for a fee, at 
the NRC's Public Document Room (PDR), located at One White Flint 
North, Public File Area O1 F21, 11555 Rockville Pike (first 
floor), Rockville, Maryland.
 
The filing of requests for hearing and petitions for leave to 
intervene is discussed below. Within 60 days after the date of 
publication of this notice, the licensee may file a request for a 
hearing with respect to issuance of the amendment to the subject 
facility operating license and any person whose interest may be 
affected by this proceeding and who wishes to participate as a 
party in the proceeding must file a written request for a hearing 
and a petition for leave to intervene. Requests for a hearing and 
a petition for leave to intervene shall be filed in accordance 
with the Commission's ``Rules of Practice for Domestic Licensing 
Proceedings'' in 10 CFR Part 2. Interested persons should consult 
a current copy of 10 CFR 2.309, which is available at the 
Commission's PDR, located at One White Flint North, Public File 
Area O1F21, 11555 Rockville Pike (first floor), Rockville, 
Maryland. Publicly-available records will be accessible from the 
Agencywide Documents Access and Management System's (ADAMS) 
Public Electronic Reading Room on the Internet at the NRC Web 
site, doc-collections/cfr/. If a request for a hearing or 
petition for leave to intervene is filed by the above date, the 
Commission or a presiding officer designated by the Commission or 
by the Chief Administrative Judge of the Atomic Safety and 
Licensing Board Panel, will rule on the request and/or petition; 
and the Secretary or the Chief Administrative Judge of the Atomic 
Safety and Licensing Board will issue a notice of a hearing or an 
appropriate order.
 
As required by 10 CFR 2.309, a petition for leave to intervene 
shall set forth with particularity the interest of the petitioner 
in the proceeding, and how that interest may be affected by the 
results of the proceeding. The petition should specifically 
explain the reasons why intervention should be permitted with 
particular reference to the following general requirements: (1) 
The name, address and telephone number of the requestor or 
petitioner; (2) the nature of the requestor's/petitioner's right 
under the Act to be made a party to the proceeding; (3) the 
nature and extent of the requestor's/petitioner's property, 
financial, or other interest in the proceeding; and (4) the 
possible effect of any decision or order which may be entered in 
the proceeding on the requestor's/petitioner's interest. The 
petition must also identify the specific contentions which the 
petitioner/requestor seeks to have litigated at the proceeding.
 
Each contention must consist of a specific statement of the issue 
of law or fact to be raised or controverted. In addition, the 
petitioner/requestor shall provide a brief explanation of the 
bases for the contention and a concise statement of the alleged 
facts or expert opinion which support the contention and on which 
the petitioner intends to rely in proving the contention at the 
hearing. The petitioner/requestor must also provide references to 
those specific sources and documents of which the petitioner is 
aware and on which the petitioner intends to rely to establish 
those facts or expert opinion. The petition must include 
sufficient information to show that a genuine dispute exists with 
the applicant on a material issue of law or fact. Contentions 
shall be limited to matters within the scope of the amendment 
under consideration. The contention must be one which, if proven, 
would entitle the petitioner to relief. A petitioner/requestor 
who fails to satisfy these requirements with respect to at
 
[[Page 43821]] least one contention will not be permitted to 
participate as a party.
 
Those permitted to intervene become parties to the proceeding, 
subject to any limitations in the order granting leave to 
intervene, and have the opportunity to participate fully in the 
conduct of the hearing.
 
If a hearing is requested, the Commission will make a final 
determination on the issue of no significant hazards 
consideration. The final determination will serve to decide when 
the hearing is held. If the final determination is that the 
amendment request involves no significant hazards consideration, 
the Commission may issue the amendment and make it immediately 
effective, notwithstanding the request for a hearing. Any hearing 
held would take place after issuance of the amendment. If the 
final determination is that the amendment request involves a 
significant hazards consideration, any hearing held would take 
place before the issuance of any amendment.
 
Nontimely requests and/or petitions and contentions will not be 
entertained absent a determination by the Commission or the 
presiding officer of the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board that 
the petition, request and/or the contentions should be granted 
based on a balancing of the factors specified in 10 CFR 
2.309(c)(1)(i)-(viii). A request for a hearing or a petition for 
leave to intervene must be filed by: (1) First class mail 
addressed to the Office of the Secretary of the Commission, U.S. 
Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001, 
Attention: Rulemaking and Adjudications Staff; (2) courier, 
express mail, and expedited delivery services: Office of the 
Secretary, Sixteenth Floor, One White Flint North, 11555 
Rockville Pike, Rockville, Maryland 20852, Attention: Rulemaking 
and Adjudications Staff; (3) E-mail addressed to the Office of 
the Secretary, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, ; or (4) 
facsimile transmission addressed to the Office of the Secretary, 
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC, Attention: 
Rulemakings and Adjudications Staff at (301) 415-1101, 
verification number is (301) 415-1966. A copy of the request for 
hearing and petition for leave to intervene should also be sent 
to the Office of the General Counsel, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory 
Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001, and it is requested that 
copies be transmitted either by means of facsimile transmission 
to 301-415-3725 or by email to .
 
A copy of the request for hearing and petition for leave to 
intervene should also be sent to Jeffrie J. Keenan, Esquire, 
Nuclear Business Unit--N21, P.O. Box 236, Hancocks Bridge, NJ 
08038, attorney for the licensee.
 
For further details with respect to this action, see the 
application for amendment dated December 7, 2005, and the 
supplement dated July 20, 2006, which are available for public 
inspection at the Commission's PDR, located at One White Flint 
North, File Public Area O1 F21, 11555 Rockville Pike (first 
floor), Rockville, Maryland.
 
Publicly- available records will be accessible from the ADAMS 
Public Electronic Reading Room on the Internet at the NRC Web 
site, .
 
Persons who do not have access to ADAMS or who encounter problems 
in accessing the documents located in ADAMS, should contact the 
NRC PDR Reference staff by telephone at 1-800-397-4209 or 
301-415-4737, or by e-mail to .
 
Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 26th day of July 2006.
 
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
 
Stewart N. Bailey, Senior Project Manager, Plant Licensing Branch 
1-2, Division of Operating Reactor Licensing, Office of Nuclear 
Reactor Regulation.
 
[FR Doc. E6-12442 Filed 8-1-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7590-01-P

 
*****************************************************************
 11 NRC: Agency Information Collection Activities: Submission for the 
 
                        FR Doc E6-12444 
[Federal Register: August 2, 2006 (Volume 71, Number 148)]
[Notices]               
[Page 43815-43816]
From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access
[wais.access.gpo.gov]
[DOCID:fr02au06-116]                         
 
Office of Management and Budget (OMB) Review; Comment Request
AGENCY: Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC).
 
ACTION: Notice of the OMB review of information collection and 
solicitation of public comment.
 
-----------------------------------------------------------------
------
 
SUMMARY: The NRC has recently submitted to OMB for review the
following 
proposal for the collection of information under the provisions
of the 
Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. Chapter 35). The NRC
hereby
 
[[Page 43816]]
informs potential respondents that an agency may not conduct or 
sponsor, and that a person is not required to respond to, a
collection 
of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control
number.
 
1. Type of submission, new, revision, or extension: Revision;
2. The title of the information collection: Policy Statement
on 
Cooperation with States at Commercial Nuclear Power Plants and
Other 
Production or Utilization Facilities;
3. The form number if applicable: N/A;
4. How often the collection is required: On occasion, when a
State 
wishes to observe NRC inspections or perform inspections for NRC;
5. Who will be required or asked to report: Those States
interested 
in observing or performing inspections;
6. An estimate of the number of annual responses: 154 (50
nuclear 
facility + 104 materials security licensees);
7. The estimated number of annual respondents: 66 (50
nuclear 
facility + 16 materials security licensees);
8. An estimate of the total number of hours needed annually
to 
complete the requirement or request: 1,540 hours (10 hours per 
response);
9. An indication of whether Section 3507(d), Pub. L. 104-13 
applies: N/A;
10. Abstract: States wishing to enter into an agreement with
NRC to 
observe or participate in NRC inspections at nuclear power
facilities 
or conduct materials security inspections against NRC Orders are 
requested to provide certain information to the NRC to ensure
close 
cooperation and consistency with the NRC inspection program, as 
specified by the Commission's Policy of Cooperation with States
at 
Commercial Nuclear Power Plants and Other Nuclear Production or 
Utilization Facilities and Section 274i of the atomic Energy
Act, as 
amended.
 
A copy of the final supporting statement may be viewed free
of 
charge at the NRC Public Document Room, One White Flint North,
11555 
Rockville Pike, Room O-1 F21, Rockville, MD 20852. OMB clearance 
requests are available at the NRC worldwide Web site:
http://www.nrc.gov/
public-involve/doc-comment/ omb/index.html. The document 
will be available on the NRC home page site for 60 days after
the 
signature date of this notice.
 
Comments and questions should be directed to the OMB
reviewer 
listed below by September 1, 2006. Comments received after this
date 
will be considered if it is practical to do so, but assurance of 
consideration cannot be given to comments received after this
date.
 
John A. Asalone, Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs
(3150-
0163), NEOB-10202, Office of Management and Budget, Washington,
DC 
20503.
 
Comments can also be e-mailed to John_A._Asalone@omb.eop.gov
or 
submitted by telephone at (202) 395-4650.
 
The NRC Clearance Officer is Brenda Jo. Shelton,
301-415-7233.
 
Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 25th day of July, 2006.
 
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
 
Brenda Jo Shelton,
NRC Clearance Officer, Office of Information Services.
 
[FR Doc. E6-12444 Filed 8-1-06; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7590-01-P

 
*****************************************************************
 12 NRC: Notice of Availability of Environmental Assessment and Finding
 
                        FR Doc E6-12445 
[Federal Register: August 2, 2006 (Volume 71, Number 148)]
[Notices]               
[Page 43822-43823]
From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access
[wais.access.gpo.gov]
[DOCID:fr02au06-122]                         
 
of 
No Significant Impact for License Amendment for United Nuclear 
Corporation, Church Rock, NM
AGENCY: Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
 
ACTION: Notice of availability.
 
-----------------------------------------------------------------
------
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Paul Michalak, Project Manager,
Fuel 
Cycle Facilities Branch, Division of Fuel Cycle Safety and
Safeguards, 
Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards, U.S. Nuclear 
Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC, 20555. Telephone: (301)
415-
7612; fax number: (301) 415-5955; e-mail: .
 
 
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
I. Introduction
The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) proposes to
issue a 
license amendment for License Condition 35 (ground water
protection 
standards), to Materials License SUA-1475, for the United
Nuclear 
Corporation (UNC), Church Rock, New Mexico uranium mill site
(the 
Site). The purpose of this amendment is to revise the current 
chloroform ground water protection standard of 0.001 milligrams
per 
liter (mg/L) to 0.08 mg/L for total trihalomethanes (THMs), and
revise 
the current combined radium-226 and -228 GWPS from 5 pCi/L to
5.2 pCi/L 
in the Southwest Alluvium and from 5 pci/L to 9.4 pCi/L in Zone
1.
 
II. EA Summary
The staff has prepared an environmental assessment (EA) in
support 
of the proposed license amendment. Since this action relates to
ground 
water, the primary focus of the evaluation of potential
environmental 
impacts relates to ground water. Ground water is not used as a
potable 
source at, or in, the immediate vicinity of the Site. The
closest down-
gradient public-use well is about 2,700 meters (8,860 feet) to
the 
northeast. With the exception of the historical mill and mine
activity, 
land use is primarily grazing for sheep, cattle and horses. The
area 
around the Site is sparsely populated and includes Indian Tribal
Land 
as well as UNC-owned property. The primary use of the Indian
Tribal 
Land is grazing. The proposed total THMs ground water protection 
standard of 0.08 mg/L is one established by the U.S.
Environmental 
Protection Agency (EPA) under the Safe Drinking Water Act, and
it 
represents a thoroughly examined and evaluated maximum allowable 
drinking water concentration that is considered to be safe by
the EPA. 
With respect to the proposed combined radium-226 and 228
standards, 
both the proposed standard of 5.2 pCi/L in the Southwest
Alluvium and 
9.4 pCi/L in Zone 1 represent the 95th percentile background 
concentrations in their respective saturated units. They were
both 
derived from a large data set collected over a 16 year period
and are 
both below the New Mexico Ground Water Protection Standard of 30
pCi/L.
 
III. Finding of No Significant Impact
On the basis of the EA, NRC has concluded that there are no 
significant environmental impacts from the proposed amendment
and has 
determined not to prepare an environmental impact statement.
 
IV. Further Information
Documents related to this action, including the application
for 
amendment and supporting documentation, are available
electronically at 
the NRC's Electronic Reading Room at .
 
From this site, you can access the NRC's Agencywide 
Documents Access and Management System (ADAMS), which provides
text and 
image files of NRC's public documents. The ADAMS accession
numbers for 
the documents related to this notice are as follows:
-----------------------------------------------------------------
-----------------------------------------------

 
ADAMS
Document                         
accession No.                    Date
-----------------------------------------------------------------
-----------------------------------------------
License Amendment Request for Changing the Chloroform     
ML052310151  May 26, 2005.
 
Ground Water Protection Standard in Source Materials
License SUA-1475.
 
Revised License Amendment Request for Changing the        
ML052100367  July 14, 2005.
 
Chloroform Ground Water Protection Standard in Source
Materials License SUA-1475.
 
License Amendment Request for Changing the Method of      
ML053010019  September 30, 2005.
 
Determining Exceedances of the Combined Radium
Groundwater Protection Standard in Source Materials
License No. SUA-1475.
Summary of January 18, 2006 public meeting between NRC    
ML060200298  January 23, 2006.
 
and UNC.
 
 
[[Page 43823]]
Revised License Amendment Request for Changing the        
ML060730043  February 22, 2006.
 
Method of Determining Exceedances of the Combined
Radium Groundwater Protection Standard in Source
Materials License SUA-1475.
 
Revised License Amendment Request for Changing the        
ML061220286  April 7, 2006.
 
Method of Determining Exceedances of the Combined
Radium Groundwater Protection Standard in Source
Materials License SUA-1475.
 
Environmental Assessment of License Amendment Request     
ML061870630  July 21, 2006.
 
for Changing Ground Water Protection Standards in
Source Materials License SUA-1475.
 
-----------------------------------------------------------------
-----------------------------------------------
If you do not have access to ADAMS or if there are problems in 
accessing the documents located in ADAMS, contact the NRC's
Public 
Document Room (PDR) Reference staff at 800-397-4209,
301-415-4737, or 
by e-mail, to .
 
These documents may also be viewed electronically on the
public 
computers located at the NRC's PDR, O1 F21, One White Flint
North, 
11555 Rockville Pike, Rockville, MD 20852. The PDR reproduction 
contractor will copy documents for a fee.
 
Dated at Rockville, Maryland this 26th day of July, 2006.
 
For The Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
 
Paul Michalak,
Project Manager, Fuel Cycle Facilities Branch, Division of Fuel
Cycle 
Safety and Safeguards, Office of Nuclear Material Safety and 
Safeguards.
 
[FR Doc. E6-12445 Filed 8-1-06; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7590-01-P

 
*****************************************************************
 13 NRC: Notice of Issuance of Decommissioning Amendments for Cornell 
 
                        FR Doc E6-12462 
[Federal Register: August 2, 2006 (Volume 71, Number 148)] 
[Notices] [Page 43821-43822] From the Federal Register Online via 
GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov] [DOCID:fr02au06-121]                         
 
University Triga Research Reactor (TRIGA) and Cornell University 
Zero Power Reactor (ZPR) The Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) 
has approved the Cornell University Ward Center for Nuclear 
Studies (WCNS) decommissioning plan (DP) by amendments to the 
Facility Operating Licenses for the TRIGA
 
[[Page 43822]] Research Reactor and the Zero Power Reactor (ZPR).
 
The WCNS is located on the Cornell University campus in Ithaca, 
New York. The WCNS was constructed between 1959 and 1962 to house 
the TRIGA, the ZPR, and supporting systems. The TRIGA Reactor 
ceased operations on April 21, 2003. The ZPR ceased operations in 
1996. The licensee submitted the WCNS DP to the NRC for review 
and approval in a letter dated August 22, 2003, as supplemented 
on May 13, September 27, October 26 and December 13, 2005, and 
February 13, 2006. The NRC approved the DP by Amendment No. 14 to 
the TRIGA Facility Operating License No. R-80 on June 15, 2006 
and Amendment No. 8 to the ZPR Facility Operating License No. 
R-89 on June 6, 2006. A ``Notice and Solicitation of Comments 
Pursuant to 10 CFR 20.1405 and 10 CFR 50.82(b)(5) Concerning 
Proposed Action To Decommission WCNS at Cornell University 
Reactor Facility'' was published in the Federal Register on 
August 10, 2005 (70 FR 46549). No comments were received.
 
Copies of the license amendments approving Cornell University's 
proposed decommissioning plan are available for public inspection 
at the Commission's Public Document Room (PDR), located at One 
White Flint North, 11555 Rockville Pike (first floor), Rockville, 
Maryland, 20855- 2738. The NRC maintains an Agencywide Documents 
Access and Management System (ADAMS), which provides text and 
image files of NRC's public documents. The amendments may be 
accessed electronically from the ADAMS Public Electronic Reading 
Room on the Internet at the NRC Web site, http://www.nrc.gov/ 
reading-rm/adams.html under ADAMS accession number ML061030501 
and ML061030405. Persons who do not have access to ADAMS, or have 
problems in accessing the documents located in ADAMS, may contact 
the NRC PDR Reference staff by phone at 1-800-397-4209, 301- 
415-4737, or by e-mail to pdr@nrc.gov. Dated at Rockville, 
Maryland, this 15 day of June, 2006.
 
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
 
Brian E. Thomas, Branch Chief, Research and Test Reactors Branch, 
Division of Policy and Rulemaking, Office of Nuclear Reactor 
Regulation.
 
[FR Doc. E6-12462 Filed 8-1-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7590-01-P

 
*****************************************************************
 14 NRC: Kansas State University; Notice of Acceptance for Docketing of 
 
                        FR Doc E6-12465 
[Federal Register: August 2, 2006 (Volume 71, Number 148)] 
[Notices] [Page 43816-43817] From the Federal Register Online via 
GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov] [DOCID:fr02au06-117]                         
 
the Application and Notice of Opportunity for Hearing Regarding 
Renewal of Kansas State University Nuclear Reactor Facility 
License No.
 
R-88 for an Additional 20-Year Period The Nuclear Regulatory 
Commission (NRC or the Commission) is considering an application 
for the renewal of Facility License No. R- 88, which authorizes 
the Kansas State University (KSU) (the licensee) to operate the 
TRIGA Mark II Nuclear Reactor Facility at 1,250 kilowatts thermal 
power. The renewed license would authorize the applicant to 
operate the KSU Research Reactor for an additional 20 years 
beyond the period specified in the current license. The current 
license for the KSU Research Reactor expired on October 16, 2002.
 
On September 12, 2002, as supplemented on December 22, 2004, July 
6, 2005, March 20 and March 30, 2006, the Commission's staff 
received an application from KSU filed pursuant to 10 CFR 
50.51(a), to renew Facility License No. R-88 for the KSU Research 
Reactor. A Notice of Receipt and Availability of the license 
renewal application, ``Notice of License Renewal Application for 
Facility Operating License; Kansas State University,'' was 
published in the Federal Register on October 11, 2002 (67 FR 
63457). Because the license renewal application was timely filed 
under 10 CFR 2.109, the license will not be deemed to have 
expired until the license renewal application has been finally 
determined.
 
The Commission's staff has determined that KSU has submitted 
sufficient information in accordance with 10 CFR 50.33 and 50.34 
that the application is acceptable for docketing. The current 
Docket No. 50- 188 for Facility License No. R-88, will be 
retained. The docketing of the renewal application does not 
preclude requesting additional information as the review 
proceeds, nor does it predict whether the Commission will grant 
or deny the application. Prior to a decision to renew the 
license, the Commission will have made findings required by the 
Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended (the Act), and the 
Commission's rules and regulations.
 
Within sixty (60) days after the date of publication of this 
Federal Register Notice, the applicant may file a request for a 
hearing, and any person whose interest may be affected by this 
proceeding and who wishes to participate as a party in the 
proceeding must file a written request for a hearing and a 
petition for leave to intervene with respect to the renewal of 
the license. Requests for a hearing and a petition for leave to 
intervene shall be filed in accordance with the Commission's 
``Rules of Practice for Domestic Licensing Proceedings'' in 10 
CFR part 2. Interested persons should consult a current copy of 
10 CFR 2.309, which is available at the Commission's Public 
Document Room (PDR), located at One White Flint North, 11555 
Rockville Pike (first floor), Rockville, Maryland 20852 and is 
accessible from the Agency Public Electronic Reading Room on the 
Internet at the NRC Web site, http://www.nrc.gov/ reading-rm/doc- 
collections/cfr. Persons who do not have access to the NRC Web 
site or who encounter problems in accessing the documents located 
in the Electronic Reading Room should contact the NRC's PDR 
reference staff at 1-800-397-4209, or by e-mail at pdr@nrc.gov. 
If a request for a hearing or a petition for leave to intervene 
is filed within the 60-day period, the Commission or a presiding 
officer designated by the Commission or by the Chief 
Administrative Judge of the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board 
Panel will rule on the request and/or petition; and the Secretary 
or the Chief Administrative Judge of the Atomic Safety and 
Licensing Board will issue a notice of a hearing or an 
appropriate order.
 
In the event that no request for a hearing or petition for leave 
to intervene is filed within the 60-day period, the NRC may, upon 
completion of its evaluations and upon making the findings 
required under 10 CFR parts 50
 
[[Page 43817]] and 51, renew the license without further notice.
 
As required by 10 CFR 2.309, a petition for leave to intervene 
shall set forth with the particular interest of the petitioner in 
the proceeding, and how that interest may be affected by the 
results of the proceeding. The petition must specifically explain 
the reasons why intervention should be permitted with particular 
reference to the following factors: (1) The nature of the 
requestor's/petitioner's right under the Atomic Energy Act to be 
made a party to the proceeding; (2) the nature and extent of the 
requestor's/petitioner's property, financial, or other interest 
in the proceeding; and (3) the possible effect of any decision or 
order which may be entered in the proceeding on the 
requestor's/petitioner's interest. The petition must also set 
forth the specific contentions which the petitioner/requestor 
seeks to have litigated at the proceeding.
 
Each contention must consist of a specific statement of the issue 
of law or fact to be raised or controverted. In addition, the 
requestor/petitioner shall provide a brief explanation of the 
bases of each contention and a concise statement of the alleged 
facts or the expert opinion that supports the contention on which 
the requestor/ petitioner intends to rely in proving the 
contention at the hearing. The requestor/petitioner must also 
provide references to those specific sources and documents of 
which the requestor/petitioner is aware and on which the 
requestor/petitioner intends to rely to establish those facts or 
expert opinion. The requestor/petitioner must provide sufficient 
information to show that a genuine dispute exists with the 
applicant on a material issue of law or fact.\1\ Contentions 
shall be limited to matters within the scope of the action under 
consideration. The contention must be one that, if proven, would 
entitle the requestor/ petitioner to relief. A 
requestor/petitioner who fails to satisfy these requirements with 
respect to at least one contention will not be permitted to 
participate as a party.
 
----------------------------------------------------------------- 
---------- \1\ To the extent that the applications contain 
attachments and supporting documents that are not publicly 
available because they are asserted to contain safeguards or 
proprietary information, petitioners desiring access to this 
information should contact the applicant or applicant's counsel 
and discuss the need for a protective order.
 
----------------------------------------------------------------- 
---------- Each contention shall be given a separate numeric or 
alpha designation within one of the following groups: 1. 
Technical--primarily concerns/issues relating to technical and/ 
or health and safety matters discussed or referenced in the 
applicant's safety analysis for the KSU Research Reactor license 
renewal application.
 
2. Environmental--primarily concerns issues relating to matters 
discussed or referenced in the Environmental Report for the 
license renewal application.
 
3. Miscellaneous--does not fall into one of the categories 
outlined above.
 
As specified in 10 CFR 2.309, if two or more 
requestors/petitioners seek to co-sponsor a contention, the 
requestors/petitioners shall jointly designate a representative 
who shall have the authority to act for the 
requestors/petitioners with respect to that contention.
 
If a requestor/petitioner seeks to adopt the contention of 
another sponsoring requestor/petitioner, the requestor/petitioner 
who seeks to adopt the contention must either agree that the 
sponsoring requestor/ petitioner shall act as the representative 
with respect to that contention, or jointly designate with the 
sponsoring requestor/ petitioner a representative who shall have 
the authority to act for the requestors/petitioners with respect 
to that contention.
 
Those permitted to intervene become parties to the proceeding, 
subject to any limitations in the order granting leave to 
intervene, and have the opportunity to participate fully in the 
conduct of the hearing. A request for a hearing or a petition for 
leave to intervene must be filed by: (1) First class mail 
addressed to the Office of the Secretary of the Commission, U.S. 
Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001, 
Attention: Rulemaking and Adjudications Staff; (2) courier, 
express mail, and expedited delivery services: Office of the 
Secretary, Sixteenth Floor, One White Flint North, 11555 
Rockville Pike, Rockville, Maryland, 20852, Attention: Rulemaking 
and Adjudications Staff; (3) E-mail addressed to the Office of 
the Secretary, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, 
HEARINGDOCKET@NRC.GOV; or (4) facsimile transmission addressed to 
the Office of the Secretary, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, 
Washington, DC, Attention: Rulemakings and Adjudications Staff at 
301-415-1101, verification number is 301-415-1966. A copy of the 
request for hearing and petition for leave to intervene must also 
be sent to the Office of the General Counsel, U.S. Nuclear 
Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001, and it is 
requested that copies be transmitted either by means of facsimile 
transmission to 301-415-3725 or by e-mail to

 
OGCMailCenter@nrc.gov. A copy of the request for hearing and 
petition for leave to intervene should also be sent to the 
licensee. The licensee's contact for this is Mr. P. Michael 
Whaley, Nuclear Reactor Manager, Kansas State University, 112 
Ward Hall, Manhattan, KS 66506- 2506.
 
Non-timely requests and/or petitions and contentions will not be 
entertained absent a determination by the Commission, the 
presiding officer, or the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board that 
the petition, request and/or contentions should be granted based 
on a balancing of the factors specified in 10 CFR 
2.309(c)(1)(i)-(viii). Detailed guidance which the NRC uses to 
review applications for the renewal of non-power reactor licenses 
can be found in the document NUREG-1537, entitled ``Guidelines 
for Preparing and Reviewing Applications for the Licensing of 
Non-Power Reactors,'' can be obtained from the Commission's PDR. 
The NRC maintains an Agencywide Documents Access and Management 
System (ADAMS), which provides text and image files of NRC's 
public documents. The detailed review guidance (NUREG- 1537) may 
be accessed through the NRC's Public Electronic Reading Room on 
the Internet at http://www.nrc.gov/ reading-rm/adams.html under 
ADAMS accession number ML042430055 for part one and ML042430048 
for part two. Copies of the application to renew the facility 
license for the KSU Research Reactor are available for public 
inspection at the Commission's PDR, located at One White Flint 
North, 11555 Rockville Pike (first floor), Rockville, Maryland, 
20855-2738. The initial application also may be accessed through 
the NRC's Public Electronic Reading Room, at the address 
mentioned above, under ADAMS accession number ML022630083. The 
revised application may be accessed under ADAMS accession numbers 
ML052620181, ML061010264, and ML061640340.
 
Persons who do not have access to ADAMS, or if there are problems 
in accessing the documents located in ADAMS, may contact the NRC 
Public Document Room Reference staff at 1-800-397-4209, 
301-415-4737, or by e-mail to pdr@nrc.gov. Dated at Rockville, 
Maryland, this 5th day of July, 2006.
 
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
 
Brian E. Thomas, Chief, Research and Test Reactor Branch, 
Division of Policy and Rulemaking, Office of Nuclear Reactor 
Regulation.
 
[FR Doc. E6-12465 Filed 8-1-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7590-01-P

 
*****************************************************************
 15 TaiwanHeadlines: Construction of no.4 nuclear power plant may be
suspended in August 

Thursday, August 03, 2006 

Taiwan Power Company (TPC) said construction of No.4 nuclear 
power plant would be suspended by the end of August if its 
proposal to add a budget of NT$54.3 billion (US$1.67 billion at 
US$1:NT$32.5) doesn't pass the screening of the Council for 
Economic Planning and Development.

TPC said the fund available to finance the construction of the 
No.4 nuclear power plant is only NT$1.5 billion (US$46.15 
million) left.

Construction of the No.4 nuclear power plant was suspended for 
more than 100 days in 2000 when the ruling Democratic Progressive 
Party took power, which has prolonged the construction period for 
the power plant to 11 and a half years from originally planned 
six and a half years. Because of the delay in normal 
construction, the first generating unit of the power plant won't 
be put into commercial operations until July 2009.

TPC said it has to bear a loss of NT$683 million (US$21.02 
million) for a month of construction suspension. In other words, 
the company has to spend NT$8.2 billion (US$252.3 million) in 
interest payment and project supervisory fees in every year of 
construction suspension.

Despite the call by Vice President Annette Lu for reviewing the 
"non-nuclear homeland" policy, TPC said it has to stop 
construction of the No.4 nuclear power plant if the CEPD fails to 
pass its proposal to increase the budget.

Because of the construction suspension, said TPC, the overall 
budget for the construction of the power plant has increased to 
NT$236.8 billion (US$7.28 billion) from originally set NT$169.73 
billion (US$5.22 billion).

Copyright � 2006 
Government Information Office, Republic of China (Taiwan) 
*****************************************************************
 16 The Mercury: Nuclear plant cuts power to cool water
             
Evan Brandt, ebrandt@pottsmerc.com

08/02/2006

LIMERICK -- Not that you needed another example of how hot it is, 
but it�s so hot that the area�s nuclear power plant had to cut 
the amount of power it produces.                                                       

Not because fewer air conditioners are running full blast, far 
from it. But to run at 100 percent capacity, which, until 
Tuesday, Exelon�s Limerick Nuclear Generating Station had been 
doing, the water used to condense the steam that drives the 
generators back into water needs to be cool enough to get the job 
done.

When the mercury reaches 98 degrees, as it did Tuesday at St.
Pius X High School, it�s hard to get the water cool enough to
perform that vital function.

So, at about 3:30 p.m. Tuesday, unit two at the plant was
stepped back by 16 megawatts, just over 1 percent of its full
12,000 megawatt capacity, said Beth Rapczynsky, a spokeswoman
for Exelon.

The plant�s massive cooling towers, visible for miles, take
water from the Schuylkill River and use it to cool elements that
come into contact with the steam used to drive the two giant
electric generators at the plant.

Once the steam condenses back into water, it is re-circulated
through the reactor, where the nuclear reaction heats it into
steam again to drive the generators.

When the cooling water leaves its contact with the heat-exchange
element, it is normally about 125 degrees and is air cooled in
the towers down to about 95 degrees when it goes back to
condense the steam.

But when the air temperature is 95 degrees or hotter, the water
in the towers is not cooled sufficiently to cool the steam fast
enough to run the generator at peak capacity, Rapczynsky
explained.

The reduction is not unusual and has already occurred at many
other nuclear plants across the country, particularly in the
midwest where the heat wave has been going on for days, she said.

It is happening in Europe as well. Reactors in Spain and France,
which generates 70 percent of its electricity from nuclear
power, have all been forced to cut output recently because the
river water normally used for coolant is too warm, the New York
Times reported. 

�The Mercury 2006                                       

*****************************************************************
 17 Galveston County Daily News: Nuclear Energy Is Best

Thursday, August 3, 2006 | Texas' Oldest Newspaper:   

Letters to the Editor
 August 2, 2006 	 Nuclear Energy Is Best


The tone of the story on nuclear energy by Marty Schladen (The
Daily News, July 30) took on the air of an editorial.

All of the considerations seemed to be based on current cost and
availability of fossil fuels. There are so many other
considerations for electrical power:

� Jobs to construct the unit.

� Energy for the future.

� Dollars going overseas for liquefied natural gas.

� Long-term cost or fuel and construction.

� Energy efficiency.

� Reliability of fuel supply.

� Giving money to dubious foreign countries.

From this engineer�s view, nuclear power is by far the best
choice. And that is what Congress is trying to tell us.

Please don�t sell a coal-powered plant on current cost.

Umphrey E. McKinney Bacliff

� 2006 The Galveston County Daily News. All rights reserved. A
Publication.   

*****************************************************************
 18 War Crimes, the Hush-Hush Energy Option, Tritium,
 
Date: Wed, 02 Aug 2006 15:15:01 -0700

Dear Readers,

The United States is designing nuclear weapons for use in 
"tactical" strikes, pretending that civilians will not be harmed.  
Such thinking might only be misguided or ignorant, but I think it 
is an intentional blindness.  Building nuclear weapons is, 
itself, a war crime.  Using them is simply a more OBVIOUS war 
crime.

Israel is using Depleted Uranium weaponry in Lebanon, along with 
concussive rounds, 2,000-lb bombs in cities and towns (which 
invariably kill everyone in a wide circle, and wound and maim 
many others in a wider circle), and, of course, they are using 
"Willie Pete."  These are all war crimes, along with Hezbolla's 
use of Katusha rockets and suicide-bombers against civilians.  So 
are assassinations, car bombings, environmental destruction, 
endless war, false excuses and a million other things.  But they 
keep happening.

Meanwhile, in energy and/or nuclear government agencies in the 
U.S., U.K., Russia, and elsewhere, the current global strife is 
seen as an OPPORTUNITY to spread "peaceful" nuclear power.

British Prime Minister Tony Blair visited California this week to 
talk about energy with Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger, but the 
details have not been released.  That alone smacks of a 
pro-nuclear bias.  Nuclear power is the hush-hush energy option, 
because it's technologically unworkable, uneconomic, and tends to 
be strongly (or not-so-strongly) opposed by most citizens and by 
all reasonable, knowledgeable, experts.  So why talk about it?

Below are some comments about my previous newsletter, and a 
complete resend of that newsletter.  There is a correction 
concerning the source of the Helen Caldicott quote which was in 
the Carrie Dickerson letter.  I have also included a very kind 
comment I was honored to receive from author, physician, and 
scientist Dr. Janette Sherman.  Jack Shannon has expanded on his 
previous comments, so I've inserted them as well.

I would also like to thank Dr. Conrad Miller for sending me his 
July 2006 newsletter, which quoted my Tritium article 
extensively, and which I intend to forward to this distribution 
list soon.  In a previous letter, Dr. Sherman also commented very 
favorably on the tritium article, as has Dr. Judith Johnsrud and 
several other scientists.  A link to the current version appears 
at the bottom of this newsletter.

Lastly, I would like to thank Oscar Shirani for his recent 
correspondence.  Mr. Shirani is in immediate need of a 
biographer, videographer, documentarist, and/or scriptwriter, 
producer, etc..  His is a stunning story of one man's fight 
against American Corporate and Federal corruption, corruption 
which has put millions of Americans at grave risk, and has 
tainted the energy policies of several nations.  A whistleblower 
on nuclear Dry Cask Storage issues, Shirani has spoken at 
numerous events in Europe and America and has been quoted -- and 
misquoted -- around the world.  Anyone who might be able to help 
with any of these projects should contact Shirani directly:

Oscar Shirani <obshirani@yahoo.com>

Sincerely,

Ace Hoffman
Carlsbad, CA

rhoffman@animatedsoftware.com

MailTo:rhoffman@animatedsoftware.com?Subject=Unsubscribe-me-please .
Please be sure that "Unsubscribe-me-please" appears in the subject line.


*****************************************************************
 19 Spectrum: Divine Strake delayed until 2007

St. George UT - www.thespectrum.com - 

+ Plans include explosion at Nevada Test Site

 By BRIAN PASSEY 

ST. GEORGE - In the latest delay for the planned Divine Strake
experiment, the Pentagon announced Tuesday that the earliest it
would go forward would be "at least several months into calendar
year 2007."

The Pentagon's Defense Threat Reduction Agency and the National
Nuclear Security Administration planned Divine Strake to test
the capability of predicting damage to hardened, underground
targets.

The agencies planned to explode 700 tons of ammonium nitrate and
fuel oil in a non-nuclear explosion at the Nevada Test Site, 150
miles west of St. George. Rep. Jim Matheson, D-Utah, began this
spring questioning the safety of the explosion and the wisdom of
conducting an experiment that could lead to the building of new
nuclear weapons.

He was pleased to hear Tuesday's announcement about further
delays.

"I think it's at least tacit acknowledgment that they couldn't
prove it was safe," he said. "Before you do this test you have
to prove it's safe."

Following public outcry, probing questions from members of
Utah's and Nevada's delegations to Congress and a lawsuit from
the Western Shoshone Indians and Downwinders from Utah, the
original schedule for Divine Strake was indefinitely delayed in
May.

At that point the NNSA's Nevada Site Office withdrew its
"finding of no significant impact" in an environmental
assessment of the proposed test.

Representatives from the Nevada Site Office said it made the
decision to withdraw the finding to "clarify and provide
information on the impacts, if any, of background radiation and
global fallout on the Divine Strake experiment," according to a
Pentagon news release.

Downwinders - a group of people who attribute various diseases
to living downwind of the test site during Cold War-era nuclear
testing - were among those concerned about the large explosion
created by Divine Strake happening only one mile from past
above-ground testing at the site.

Chief among those concerns was that the explosion might
re-suspend radioactive contaminants left in the soil.

J. Preston Truman, president of Downwinders, said he was happy
to see Tuesday's announcement.

"I'm just waiting for the time that they say they are going to
forget it," he said. "We don't need new weapons development."

Truman said he believes the announcement and the withdrawal of
the environmental assessment finding make it appear as if the
federal government is admitting there are concerns about the
test.

"Basically they're admitting they should have done that in the
first place," he said, referring to proof that the test would be
safe.

Concerns remain

Matheson said it is unfortunate that there seems to be a pattern
of the federal government saying things are safe, but when it is
questioned by the issue it does not have the facts to prove it.
Accountability is necessary, he said. Aside from his concerns
about the safety of the blast, Matheson said he remains worried
about where Divine Strake will lead.

He said it is bad policy that the government wants to make new
nuclear weapons, which may be tested at the Nevada Test Site and
affect the people of Southern Utah.

Matheson said he plans to continue pushing the accountability
issue and fighting the creation of new nuclear weapons. He has
introduced legislation - the Safety for Americans from Nuclear
Weapons Testing Act - to this regard in both the past and
current Congress.

The Pentagon announcement also indicated that the NNSA and DTRA
are developing a plan that would permit Divine Strake to go
forward if it can be conducted safely, is in compliance with the
National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 and if there is a
favorable court ruling pertaining to the lawsuit.

Truman mentioned that it was interesting that the test was
postponed until after November and the mid-term elections.

"I think there's a great fear on their part that it could have
been turned into an election issue," he said.

However Truman also credited the members of Congress and other
politicians who questioned the government about the safety of
Divine Strake. If those politicians and the public had not
questioned the test, very little would have happened, he said.

"It shows the public that they can say 'no' this time," Truman
said.

Representatives from the Nevada Test Site were unavailable for
comment Tuesday afternoon.

Originally published August 2, 2006

 Copyright �2006 The Spectrum.
*****************************************************************
 20 Las Vegas SUN: Feds delay Divine Strake explosion in Nevada to 2007 

August 01, 2006 

By JENNIFER TALHELM ASSOCIATED PRESS 

WASHINGTON (AP) - The federal government will delay well into
2007 a non-nuclear test explosion known as Divine Strake, which
is expected to set off a mushroom cloud over the Nevada desert,
federal officials and lawmakers said Tuesday. 

Also, the Defense Threat Reduction Agency is considering
alternative locations for Divine Strake as well as ways to
conduct the test without an explosion, they said. 

Irene Smith, a DTRA spokeswoman, said the agency is developing a
plan that would permit Divine Strake to go ahead if it can be
done safely, in compliance with environmental laws and if a
court allows. The earliest that could happen would be next year,
she said. 

The announcement marks the latest in a series of decisions to
postpone the explosion, which has been loudly opposed by
lawmakers, local American Indians and communities in southern
Utah and Nevada. 

"Each new announcement that Divine Strake is being shelved for a
bit longer only ups the odds that it will never happen," said
Rep. Shelley Berkley, D-Nev., adding that she will continue to
raise objections. 

In June, officials said the explosion would be delayed until
September for fear that summer lightning could detonate 700 tons
of explosive ammonium nitrate and fuel oil slurry that the
government plans to pour into a huge pit for the blast. 

DTRA officials say the blast would provide data about ground
motion and shock waves that would yield information about
penetrating hardened and deeply buried targets. 

But critics have called it a surrogate for a low-yield nuclear
"bunker-buster" bomb. 

Others are concerned that the explosion would shake loose
radioactive soil from past nuclear weapons tests at the Nevada
Test Site, about 85 miles northwest of Las Vegas. 

Sen. Orrin Hatch, R-Utah, said that he told DTRA officials in a
meeting Tuesday that they must find another location. 

"I just can't tolerate this particular site," he said, adding
that he believes the test needs to be done. "There are millions
of acres in the West where they could do this." 

Rep. Jim Matheson, D-Utah, said Tuesday that the decision to
postpone and gather more information, "is tacit acknowledgment
that uncertainty remains" about whether the explosion is safe. 

"The government has yet to provide environmental data regarding
what the health risks are to communities downwind of the
explosion," he said in a statement. 

All contents copyright 2005 Las Vegas SUN, Inc.
*****************************************************************
 21 MDN:  400,000 depleted uranium bullets stored at U.S. Kadena base in
Okinawa in 2001 - MSN-Mainichi Daily News
 
August 3, 2006                                                                                                                                                  National                        
   
Nearly 400,000 depleted uranium bullets were stored at a U.S.
base in Okinawa Prefecture in 2001, according to documents that
U.S. forces disclosed under the country's Freedom of Information
Act.

It is equal to half the number of such rounds that the United
States used during the Gulf War in 1991.

The U.S. Air Force Kadena base admitted in May 2000 that it
stored depleted uranium bullets at its ammunition depot, but
this is the first time that a figure has been released.

In an interview with the Mainichi, a spokesman for Kadena base
refused to disclose the specific number of depleted uranium
bullets it currently owns or the location where they are stored.

The documents that a U.S. peace activist received from U.S.
forces show that 398,768 depleted uranium bullets of five
different types were stored at Kadena base in 2001. They also
show that a total of 2.74 million rounds were kept at three U.S.
bases in South Korea.

A South Korean peace activist, who analyzed the documents, is
scheduled to deliver a speech on the issue during an
international conference to consider a ban on depleted uranium
ammunition that will be held in Hiroshima from Thursday to
Sunday. 

August 2, 2006 	 

Copyright 2005-2006 THE MAINICHI NEWSPAPERS. All rights
*****************************************************************
 22 Radioactive waste alert: contact your state officials now
 
Date: Wed, 02 Aug 2006 15:15:03 -0700

X-Nohoney: yes white-hard - relay H=adsl-63-203-231-61.dsl.snfc21.pacbell.net (borg.energy-net.org) [63.203.231.61]
X-Sender-Host-Address: 63.203.231.61
X-Sender-Host-Name: adsl-63-203-231-61.dsl.snfc21.pacbell.net
X-Spam-Class: HAM-VERY-WHITELIST

<x-flowed>

NIRS Action Alert



Stop Mobile Chernobyls and DOE-imposed long-term high-level radioactive 
waste dumps in every state with atomic reactors



Contact your Governor, State Attorney General, and State Legislators



Urge them to contact U.S. Congressional Leaders and your States U.S. 
Congressional Delegation to oppose the potential federal governments siting 
of atomic waste parking lot dumpsagainst your states wishes





Contact info. for:



�your Governor: 
<http://www.firstgov.gov/Contact/Governors.shtml>http://www.firstgov.gov/Contact/Governors.shtml



�your State Attorney General: 
<http://www.naag.org/ag/full_ag_table.php>http://www.naag.org/ag/full_ag_table.php



�your State Legislators: 
<http://www.ncsl.org/public/leglinks.cfm>http://www.ncsl.org/public/leglinks.cfm 
(use this website to find your State Representative and State Senator)



Call, write, fax, or email your Governor, Attorney General, State 
Representative, and State Senator. Urge them to act now to prevent a rush 
to centralize long-term surface storage of high-level radioactive waste in 
your State, which could launch risky atomic waste shipments onto the roads, 
rails, and waterways, undermining safety and security.



Urge your Governor to join with Governors from other States to oppose this 
attempt by the U.S. Congress to grant DOE authority to site radioactive 
waste dumps over the objections of state and local governments.



---------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Background:




A Rushed, Secretive, and Sweeping Bill

On June 27th, H.R. 5427, the Fiscal Year 2007 U.S. Senate Energy and Water 
Appropriations Bill, passed the Senate Subcommittee for Energy and Water 
Appropriations. On June 29th, the bill was passed by the full 
Appropriations Committee. Section 313 of the bill, entitled Consolidation 
and Preparationfacilities, would empower the U.S. Department of Energy 
(DOE) to site 25-year, interimstorage sites in each and every state that 
has nuclear reactors.

             Although governors would be granted a consultative role in the 
siting process, the Energy Secretary would have final say. A State that 
refuses to cooperate with the siting of interimstorage within its borders 
faces the specter of DOE designating that State as a regional 
interimstorage site:  commercial irradiated nuclear fuel from multiple 
surrounding states could then be centralized and consolidatedin the 
un-cooperativestate.

             Not only has this very troubling and sweeping change to U.S. 
radioactive waste policy been inappropriately attached as a rider to a 
spending bill, it was hatched secretly behind closed doors and passed by 
the subcommittee and full committee without a hearing or debate. It will 
likely be added to an omnibus spending bill after the November federal 
elections, to be voted up or down without amendments by a lame duckCongress.



What Could Happen: DOE-Imposed Long-Term Storage, and Radioactive Russian 
Roulette on the Roads and Rails

As troubling as the process that led to the bills unveiling and passage has 
been, the content of the bill is even more troubling.

             Although the licenses for these interimstorage sites would be 
for 25 years and would be non-renewable, once waste is moved somewhere, 
there is a high probability that it will remain there indefinitely into the 
future. Thus, temporarystorage could become long-term or even de facto 
permanent storage.

             Centralized interimstorage, whether carried out state by state 
or regionally, would lead to hasty, helter-skelter shipments of high-level 
atomic waste by truck, train, and barge possibly through states having no 
reactors, considering shipments bound for potential multi-state regional 
interim storagesites. This would multiply Mobile Chernobylaccident risks 
and dirty bombs on wheelsterrorist attack risks, as waste would roll to 
interimstorage sites, but would then have to be transported yet again if 
and when a permanent national repository was ever opened.

             This flies in the face of recommendations made by the National 
Academy of Science earlier this year, which advised that before a 
large-scale transport program is undertaken, significant issues must be 
addressed, studies carried out, and preparations made on: full-scale crash 
testing of transport containers; the threat of terrorist attacks upon 
shipments; the danger of long-duration, high-temperature fires during 
severe accidents; numerous steps to improve the transparency, safety, and 
security of DOEs waste transport plans and policies (see 
<http://www.citizen.org/documents/NASTransportStudy.pdf>http://www.citizen.org/documents/NASTransportStudy.pdf 
for more background).




DOEs Targets for Long-Term Surface Storage

  The following 34 States have either operational and/or shutdown reactors, 
and thus are eligible to hostone or more DOE-imposed interimdumps for 
commercial irradiated fuel: Alabama, Arizona, Arkansas, California, 
Colorado, Connecticut, Florida, Georgia, Illinois, Iowa, Kansas, Louisiana, 
Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Mississippi, Missouri, 
Nebraska, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New York, North Carolina, Ohio, 
Oregon, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, Tennessee, Texas, Vermont, Virginia, 
Washington, and Wisconsin. (Michele Boyd at Public Citizen has created a 
table listing the states with nuclear reactors, where those reactors are 
located, when their operating licenses expire, and the amount of irradiated 
nuclear fuel expected by 2046 in each of those states. This document is 
available upon request from Michele at 202.454.5134 or 
<mailto:mboyd@citizen.org>mboyd@citizen.org, as well as from Kevin Kamps at 
NIRS at 301.270.6477x14 or <mailto:kevin@nirs.org>kevin@nirs.org.)




Just How Fast This Might Go Down

This bill also establishes very short deadlines for these interimstorage 
sites to be opened. Within just six months of enactment of the legislative 
language, DOE would publish a report on siting these interimstorage sites. 
Within three months after that report, DOE must designate one or more 
eligible sites(on any federal land except National Parks, Natl Forests, 
Natl Wildlife Refuges, or U.S. BLM land; or, any private land willingly 
sold to the federal government) for interimstorage within each state with 
nuclear reactors. Just one month after that designation, DOE must submit a 
license application to the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) seeking 
permission to open and operate these interimstorage sites. After it 
receives such applications, NRC is allowed only 2 years and 8 months to 
publish an environmental impact statement on each proposed interimstorage 
site, and to make a licensing decision. Thus, in just three and a half 
years, centralized, long-term surface storage facilities for high-level 
radioactive waste could be operating in each state with atomic reactors.




Political Ins and Outs

Senator Harry Reid, Senate Democratic Leader and Ranking Democrat on the 
Senate Energy and Water Appropriations Subcommittee, helped craft this bill 
as a way to further oppose the ill-conceived and dangerous Yucca Mountain 
dump targeted at his State of Nevada. Sen. Reid believes that no governor 
would designate a new, clean site for interim storage of wastes, but would 
instead designate the reactor sites themselves, where the waste is already 
stored. In addition, this bill would transfer title for the waste to DOE, 
thereby avoiding court-awarded damages costing U.S. taxpayers hundreds of 
millions to billions of dollars to nuclear utilities since DOE has failed 
to pick up the garbagebeginning in 1998 as required.

             One flaw in that logic, however, is that as written the 
legislation would allow the Energy Secretary to override 
governorsdecisions, and open waste dumps over the objections of state and 
local governments even at away-from-reactor sites, if DOE deems that 
feasible and desirable.

             In addition, Sen. Pete Domenici, Republican Chairman of the 
Energy and Water Appropriations Subcommittee (and also chair of the Senate 
Energy and Natural Resources Committee) is a leading booster and advocate 
for commercial waste reprocessing. Centralized interimstorage, whether 
within states or regions and the transportation needed to accomplish it 
would support Sen. Domenicis scheme to revive reprocessing in the U.S. 
Also, this FY07 spending bill would approve $10 million to promote the 
development of one or moreconsolidation and preparation interimstorage 
facilities that are away from civilian nuclear reactors.Although $10 
million is a relatively small amount of money when it comes to national 
nuclear waste schemes, its exclusive use for away-from-reactor 
interimstorage points to rushing waste onto the roads and rails, rather 
than keeping it on-site at the reactors where it was generated.

             Sen. Domenici is also a leading advocate for new nuclear 
reactor construction in the U.S. Another key aspect of H.R. 5427 would 
declare Nuclear Waste Confidencethat irradiated nuclear fuel and high-level 
radioactive waste will be disposed of safely and on a timely basis for the 
purposes of the [U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commissions] decision to grant or 
amend any license to operate any civilian nuclear power reactorthe law of 
the land. This would effectively block interventions by concerned citizens, 
environmental organizations, or even State governments that reactor license 
extensions, and operating licenses for new reactors, make no sense, given 
the lack of a solution for the nuclear waste problem.

             But Sen. Domenicis push for statewide or regional 
interimstorage for at least 25 years shows that states hosting new reactors 
will be stuck with the wastes generated there for a very long time to come. 
As Michele Boyd at Public Citizen has pointed out, Congress could revoke 
the Law of Gravity if it wanted to, but of course the reality is, gravity 
would still apply. Likewise, Congress can declare confidencethat a 
radioactive waste repository will be opened, but the fact remains that due 
to Yuccas leaky geology -- no scientifically suitable site has been 
identified. As Michael Keegan of Coalition for a Nuclear-Free Great Lakes 
has put it, interim storageis as much an illusion of a solution to the 
radioactive waste dilemma as is the Yucca dump itself. Once generated or 
moved, high-level radioactive waste tends to stay put for many decades into 
the future.

             Significantly, Sen. Domenici is also a leading proponent of 
the Yucca Mountain dump, and is still pushing hard to open it in some way, 
shape or form. He seems to believe that this bill would not do away with 
the need for Yucca. Rather, it could embolden Yucca dump proponents to 
declare atomic waste transport safe, and facilitate shipments through the 
45 States (and Washington, D.C.) targeted for Yucca-bound shipments (see 
<http://www.ewg.org/reports/nuclearwaste/find_address.php>http://www.ewg.org/reports/nuclearwaste/find_address.php 
for how close these road and rail routes come to your address).



Further Reading and Resources:

To read H.R. 5427 itself, go to 
<http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getdoc.cgi?dbname=109_cong_bills&docid=f:h5427rs.pdf>http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getdoc.cgi?dbname=109_cong_bills&docid=f:h5427rs.pdf. 
See Section 313, Consolidation and Preparation Facilities,on pages 111 to 122.



Public Citizens Summary of Nuclear Waste Storage Provisions in the FY2007 
Senate Energy and Water Appropriations Billis available upon request from 
Michele Boyd at Public Citizen (202.454.5134 or 
<mailto:mboyd@citizen.org>mboyd@citizen.org) as well as from Kevin Kamps at 
NIRS (301.270.6477x14 or <mailto:kevin@nirs.org>kevin@nirs.org).



NIRScomprehensive critique of U.S. radioactive waste policy, with suggested 
alternative approaches, is at: 
<http://www.nirs.org/mononline/nm643.pdf>http://www.nirs.org/mononline/nm643.pdf



Contact Kevin or Michele if you have questions.



Nuclear Information and Resource Service

6930 Carroll Avenue, #340

Takoma Park, MD 20912

301-270-6477, <http://www.nirs.org/>www.nirs.org



This is the NIRS E-Mail Alert list. You are on this list because you signed 
up on our website, at a NIRS table at a concert or other event, on a 
petition, or directly to NIRS. Your name and address are never sold, 
rented, or traded with anyone for any reason.



For address changes or to unsubscribe, just send an e-mail to 
nirsnet@nirs.org. If you have friends or colleagues who would like to be on 
this list, have them send a note to nirsnet@nirs.org



</x-flowed>
*****************************************************************
 23 [prez_usa_exile] A cool solution to waste disposal - Reducing the "Half-Life" of nuclear waste
 
Date: Wed, 2 Aug 2006 11:09:49 -0500 (CDT)

X-Sender-Host-Name: chumbly.math.missouri.edu
X-Spam-Class: HAM-VERY

A cool solution to waste disposal
[Reducing the 'Half-Life" of nuclear waste]

A group of physicists in Germany claims to have discovered a way of
speeding up radioactive decay that could render nuclear waste harmless
on timescales of just a few tens of years. Their proposed technique 
which involves slashing the half-life of an alpha emitter by embedding
it in a metal and cooling the metal to a few degrees kelvin  could
therefore avoid the need to bury nuclear waste in deep repositories, a
hugely expensive and politically difficult process. But other
researchers are sceptical and believe that the technique contradicts
well-established theory as well as experiment.

The leader of the German-based group, Claus Rolfs of Ruhr University
in Bochum, is an astrophysicist and made the discovery about alpha
decay after replicating the fusion reactions that take place in the
centre of stars. Using the university's particle accelerator he fired
protons and deuterons (nuclei containing a proton and a neutron) at
various light nuclei. He noticed that the rate of fusion reactions was
significantly greater when the nuclei were encased in metals than when
they were inserted into insulators. He also observed that the effect
is enhanced at lower temperatures (J. Phys. G: Nucl. Part. Phys. 32 489).

Rolfs believed this effect could be explained in simple terms by
assuming that the free electrons in a metal act like the electrons in
a plasma, as described in a model by Dutch physicist Peter Debye. The
lower the temperature of the metal, the closer the free electrons get
to the radioactive nuclei. These electrons accelerate positively
charged particles towards the nuclei, thereby increasing the
probability of fusion reactions.

But Rolfs realized that the reverse reaction might also occur and that
free electrons could enhance the ejection of positively charged
particles from a nucleus. This would reduce the half-lives of &#945;-decay
or &#946;+-decay, and increase half-lives for processes involving electrons
(which are repelled by the free electrons within the metal), i.e.
&#946;-decay and electron capture.

The group has investigated this hypothesis by embedding a number of
radioactive nuclei inside metals and then cooling the metal to a few
degrees kelvin. As expected, they observed a longer half-life for the
electron capture of beryllium-7 and shorter half-lives for &#946;+-decay in
sodium-22 (Eur. Phys. J. A 28 251) and &#945;-decay in polonium-210. They
are now investigating the &#945;-decay of radium-226, a hazardous component
of spent nuclear fuel with a half-life of 1600 years. Rolfs calculates
that this half-life could be reduced to as little as a year and at the
very least to 100 years, and believes that the half-lives of all other
hazardous alpha emitters within nuclear waste could be shortened by
similar amounts.

"This means that nuclear waste could probably be dealt with entirely
within the lifetimes of the people that produce it," he says. "We
would not have to put it underground and let our
great-great-grandchildren pay the price for our high standard of living."

Rolfs admits that much engineering research needs to be done to
convert his idea into practice, but he believes there are probably no
insurmountable technical barriers. Other physicists, however, think
that the basic idea may be flawed. According to Nick Stone, a nuclear
physicist recently retired from Oxford University, physicists have
already carried out experiments in which they cooled alpha emitters to
4 K and below, but found no significant changes in their half-lives.

Meanwhile, Hubert Flocard, director of the CSNSM nuclear-physics lab
near Paris, believes that Rolfs' model contradicts standard
solid-state physics, although he admits that he cannot explain the
group's data himself. Rolfs concedes that he needs a more
sophisticated theory, but stands by his results. "Nature decides what
is right," he says.
About the author

Edwin Cartlidge is News Editor of Physics World

Source:  http://physicsweb.org/articles/news/10/7/13/1

 
*****************************************************************
 24 POAC: SCIENCE AND VX DISPOSAL
 
Yucca Mountain, the Nevada site where the federal government
plans to store nuclear waste, has been called the most studied
real estate in the world. The government's scientists are
convinced that spent fuel from the nation's nuclear-power plants
can be stored safely beneath 1,000 feet of solid rock at Yucca.

[The Press of Atlantic City On The Web]     

Healthy skepticism Published: Wednesday, August 2, 2006 

Yucca Mountain, the Nevada site where the federal government
plans to store nuclear waste, has been called the most studied
real estate in the world. The government's scientists are
convinced that spent fuel from the nation's nuclear-power plants
can be stored safely beneath 1,000 feet of solid rock at Yucca.

Nonetheless, many in Nevada remain steadfastly opposed to the
plan.

Southern New Jersey is in the midst of a similar battle.

Last week, the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention
— the most respected public-health agency in the world —
said it found no health or environmental problems in the Army's
plan to dispose of VX nerve-agent waste in the Delaware River.

 Nonetheless, many in New Jersey remain opposed to the plan.

 Science doesn't carry the weight it used to. Whether it's
nuclear waste in Nevada or nerve-agent waste in New Jersey, the
public remains unconvinced by the experts.

 The skepticism is healthy.

 We would all like to live in a world of hard, immutable,
completely trustworthy scientific fact. Certainly, we need no
longer quibble about whether the Earth is round or whether it
revolves around the sun. But today's scientific issues,
particularly those like the disposal of dangerous manmade waste,
often turn on points far more speculative than, say, the law of
gravity.

 Science at this level is akin to a guess — a best guess, a
well-informed guess, a studied guess, an expert guess. But still
a guess.

 So the CDC report does not end and should not end the
controversy over hydrolysate, a caustic byproduct resulting from
the neutralization of the VX nerve agent. 

The Army wants to truck 4 million gallons of hydrolysate, which
contains trace amounts of VX, from a facility in Indiana to New
Jersey for further treatment at a DuPont Co. plant in Salem
County — and ultimate disposal into the sensitive Delaware
River and Delaware Bay ecosystem.

 One drop of VX can kill a man. The Army and the CDC say the
level of VX in the hydrolysate will be so low that it would not
harm humans. But there is evidence that even very low levels
could harm wildlife. A May 2004 Army document showed that at
levels from 20 to 25 parts per billion, VX still killed fish.

 At issue is the fragile Delaware River and Delaware Bay
ecosystem. Migrating birds, horseshoe crabs, striped bass and
other fish, and a long-struggling oyster population are all
under pressure in this already stressed ecosystem.

 And as this ecosytem goes, so go the many tourism-related and
marine businesses that depend on it.

 The Army and DuPont, which would reportedly receive $13.5
million a year during the two- to three-year treatment process,
may very well be able to dispose of this material in the
Delaware River with no ill effect. But no one can say that for
sure.

 The state of New Jersey has yet to weigh in on the plan.
Certainly, the CDC study should be reviewed carefully. But
perhaps most importantly, if a decision is ultimately made to go
ahead, DuPont should be required to set aside a significant sum
of money to mitigate any future problems caused by the disposal
of VX waste into the Delaware River. 		     	   	 
  

*****************************************************************
 25 San Bernardino County Sun: Pollution in Rialto wells rises

  Article Launched: 08/02/2006 12:00:00 AM PDT  

  Robert Rogers, Staff Writer  

  RIALTO - Perchlorate contamination in local groundwater has
spiked, claims a study released today. 

The paper, issued by the Environment California Research and
Policy Center of Los Angeles, also criticizes the corporations
it says are responsible for the pollution for failing to act
sooner. 

Perchlorate, an ingredient in rocket fuels, was first discovered
in Rialto's groundwater in 1997. 

Using test data reported by Goodrich Corp., which operated a
facility in Rialto in the 1950s and 1960s that is thought to be
a source of perchlorate contamination, the paper's authors
conclude some wells are now measuring water 200 times more
contaminated than last year.

 "The evidence suggests the perchlorate contamination problem in
Rialto is not getting better, it's getting worse," said the
report's lead author, Sujatha Jahagirdar.

 "It also shows very clearly the negligence and recalcitrance of
the corporations responsible for polluting the area," he said.

 The report hypothesizes that heavy rains last winter raised the
water table and that the water splashed previously dry,
perchlorate-laced soils and created a new "pulse" of
contamination.

 The report said that the new pollution pulse threatens several
wells around PW-2, the well from which the data was gathered. 

But the report, dubbed the "White Paper," is only one element of
a renewed vigor surrounding the issue of perchlorate
contamination, responsibility and cleanup, all of which remain
far from resolved. 

The City Council on Tuesday took symbolic action, approving a
three-pronged resolution calling on the Santa Ana Regional Water 
Quality Control Board to issue cleanup orders to Goodrich Corp., 
Emhart Corp. and other perchlorate dumpers and calling on the 
county Board of Supervisors to join the city in its efforts to 
effect cleanup. 

The council also authorized $22,000 for the distribution of
"Blast From the Past," a perchlorate-education DVD produced by
Cal State San Bernardino, to each of Rialto's 32,000 households.

 "The longer nothing is done, the longer it will take to solve
this problem," City Attorney Robert Owen said. "This is such a
huge problem, we can't afford to not keep up public awareness."

 Davin Diaz of the Center of Community Action and Environmental
Justice in San Bernardino said he, along with other
environmentalist groups, had prodded the city to seek a symbolic
resolution. 

"It is an outrage that so little has happened to address this
problem since 1997," Diaz said. "The county and the city should
be working together to pressure these multibillion-dollar
corporations who have the ability and responsibility to pay."

 Estimates of the total cleanup cost on the plume of perchlorate
contamination stretching beneath Rialto and Colton have ranged
up to $200 million.

Los Angeles Newspaper Group 
*****************************************************************
 26 TPR: DoE May Expand Industry Involvement In Nuke-Dump Licensing Process
 	
THE PEACOCK REPORT 

DIG. DISCOVER. DISCLOSE. Investigative reporting and occasional
satire by writer Steve Peacock 

 Defense Firm Gets No-Bid Bomb Support Contract Amidst
Conflict of Interest Claims

August 02, 2006
 			
DoE May Expand Industry Involvement In Nuke-Dump Licensing
Process

[Yucca_mountain_johnny] Private-sector nuclear energy providers
will have a chance to bid on three projects – rather than just
one, as previously intended – to help the U.S. Dept. of Energy
(DoE) obtain Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) approval to
build a radioactive waste repository at Yucca Mountain in
Nevada. 

TPR reported in late Junethat DoE was reaching out to industry
to review, and possibly revise, a draft waste-disposal license
application, the approval of which requires NRC blessing prior
to allowing DoE’s prime contractor – Bechtel SAIC, Co. –
to develop and open an underground storage facility. The license
review and consultation, which initially was one segment of
three distinct DoE audits of the repository project, has itself
been tentatively divided into three contracting actions -- the
overall goal of which involves the hiring a team of experts to
review "the entire license application and repository design"
and ensure the draft documents satisfy applicable NRC
regulations. 

DoE’s Office of Civilian Radioactive Waste Management (OCRWM)
late last week issued a revised "sources sought" notice to
industry, explaining that it is "considering" obtaining these
"license defense" services via three separate contracts whose
potential value remains undisclosed. Nuclear transportation
planning and implementation activities are among the areas that
these contracts would support. Second is the provision of
"expert support" to OCRWM in "completing, submitting and
potentially defending a license application." The third segment
involves assistance with professional and technical management
and administrative affairs during the licensing process. 

Potential contractors must have "significant experience and
expertise" in NRC licensing, nuclear facility design and
operations, tunnel design and operations, and working in an NRC
regulated environment, the notice says.. 

Contractors specifically must be capable of assisting DOE by: 

(1) Ensuring the sufficiency and readiness of licensing
documents for filing with NRC. 

(2) Carrying out technical reviews of design documents and
operating plans for surface nuclear facilities; 

(3) Technical reviews of tunneling plans and underground
facility designs; 

(4) Technical review of operating plans for subsurface
facilities; 

(5) Technical reviews of science and performance assessments; 

(6) Preparing an organization to be an NRC licensee' 

(7) Explaining highly technical subject matter to a
non-technical audience. 

Work will be performed at DoE headquarters in Washington, D.C.
as well as in Las Vegas. 		 		 		 		 	 	
 		August 02, 2006 | Permalink 	 						 					 					 						
							 	
*****************************************************************
 27 Reid: REID, ENSIGN CONTINUE TO PRESS FOR RELEASE OF ENVIRONMENTAL REPORT 
ON YUCCA MOUNTAIN: 

07/31/2006
                                                    
Analysis of Nuclear Fuel Management and Disposal Act Consequences 
Overdue                                                            

WASHINGTON, D.C. – In a joint letter sent Monday, U.S. Senators 
Harry Reid and John Ensign of Nevada again strongly urged the 
Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) and Department of Energy 
(DOE) to release the long-overdue and legally mandated 
environmental impact analysis of the Nuclear Fuel Management and 
Disposal Act, the proposal for dumping nuclear waste at Yucca 
Mountain. 

"Nevadans and the rest of the country have the right to know
about the environmental and public safety risks associated with
the Yucca Mountain Project.," said Reid. "That’s why it’s so
important that our request for the release of this important
study be met —otherwise, Nevadans are left to wonder what the
federal government is trying to hide.” 

“We are going to continue to press for the environmental
impact statement so that we will know the true cost of Yucca
Mountain when it comes to the health and safety of Nevadans,"
Ensign said. 

Reid and Ensign sent a follow up letter to CEQ and DOE after CEQ
responded to the original letter by referring the Nevada
Senators to the DOE, the lead agency on the proposed Yucca
Mountain nuclear waste dump. CEQ did not provide the analysis to
the Senators. 

The National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) requires the
completion and public release of an environmental analysis of
such legislation so the full environmental consequences of the
bill can be examined before Congress acts. The Nuclear Fuel
Management and Disposal Act was first presented to Congress on
April 5, 2006, nearly four months ago. The full text of the
letter is below. 

### 

July 31, 2006 

James L. Connaughton 

Chairman 

Council on Environmental Quality 

The White House 

1600 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW Washington, D.C 20500 



Samuel W. Bodman 

Secretary 

U.S. Department of Energy 

1000 Independence Avenue, SW 

Washington, DC 20585 

Dear Chairman Connaughton and Secretary Bodman: 

Thank you for responding to our letter requesting a copy of the
administration’s environmental impact analysis of the Nuclear
Fuel Management and Disposal Act, S. 2589, that Senators
Domenici and Inhofe introduced by request of the President. We
also appreciate the Council on Environmental Quality informing
us that the Department of Energy is the lead agency on this
analysis. However, our request was for a copy of the analysis,
which we still have not received. 

To reiterate, the National Environmental Policy Act requires the
administration to prepare an environmental impact analysis and
include it with any recommendation to Congress on legislative
proposals.[1] We request that the environmental impact analysis
required under NEPA and clarification as to whether that
analysis has been competed, be provided by noon on Tuesday,
August 1, 2006. 

We look forward to your response. If you have any questions or
would like to discuss this request, please contact Sandra
Schubert at 224.3542 or Pam Thiessen at 224.6244. 

Sincerely, 



HARRY REID United States Senator 

JOHN ENSIGN United States Senator 

Cc: United States Senator Pete Domenici, Chairman, Senate
Committee on Energy and Natural Resources United States Senator
Jeff Bingaman, Ranking Member, Senate Committee on Energy and
Natural Resources United States Senator James Inhofe, Chairman,
Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works United States
Senator James Jeffords, Ranking Member, Senate Committee on
Environment and Public Works 

				   		 	 
Reno Bruce R. Thompson Courthouse & Federal Bldg 400 S. Virginia 
St, Site 902 Reno, NV 89501 Phone: 775-686-5750 Fax: 775-686-5757                         
[ /]                          Las Vegas Lloyd D. George Building 
333 Las Vegas Boulevard South, Suite 8016 Las Vegas, NV 89101 
Phone: 702-388-5020 Fax: 702-388-5030                         [ 
/]                          Carson City 600 East William St, #302 
Carson City, NV 89701 Phone: 775-882-REID (7343) Fax: 
775-883-1980                         [ /]                          
Washington, DC 528 Hart Senate Office Bldg Washington, DC 20510 
Phone: 202-224-3542 Fax: 202-224-7327 Toll Free for Nevadans: 
1-866-SEN-REID (736-7343) [ /]            [ /]            [ /]            
*****************************************************************
 28 icNorthWales: N.Wales 'high on N-waste burial list'
              
Aug 2 2006
  
By Roland Hughes, Daily Post    

ENVIRONMENT campaigners last night raised fears North Wales
could be chosen for a massive underground nuclear waste tip.
Government advisers recommended storage vaults up to 1km deep be
built to store nuclear waste. And it is understood North Wales'
geology fits the criteria for creating a sealed radioactive tomb.

It could mean new schools, roads, rail links or even hospitals
as a pay-off for local communities. But green campaigners warned
there could be dangers to future generations from leaking fuel.

The recommendation to build at least one vault, at acost of
�1bn, was made to government by the Committee for Radioactive
Waste Management (Corwm).

A spokeswoman for Corwm last night said: "What we are stressing
is that abody should be set up to help implement these
recommendations, and there is a need to work with communities to
ensure this is not forced on them.

"Communities could enter into negotiations, but would still have 
the right to veto the plan if they did not support it.

"It is not just about geological suit-ability but the
sociological aspects as well."
   	
Only certain areas of Britain, for geological reasons, would be 
suitable. Among the areas thought to have been pinpointed by 
experts as being geologically sound is North Wales.

The committee recommended the vaults be built with the full 
support of the community, who could be compensated in the form of 
new rail links, roads, schools or hospitals.

Two British Geological Survey experts, brought in to assess which 
areas of Britain were most suitable for the sites, were 
unavailable for comment yesterday.

Should Corwm's recommendations be accepted, a detailed plan of 
potential sites would be commissioned by the government.

Neil Crumpton, a Friends of the Earth campaigner from Bethesda, 
said: "Experts have warned that the waste will leak from its 
containers within 500 years. We support interim and retrievable 
storage while the search for long term solution goes on."

Devolution 'may halt dump'

DEVOLUTION could prevent Welsh nuclear waste being dumped in 
England, experts said last night.

Prof Gordon MacKerron, chairman of the Committee on Radioactive 
Waste Management, admitted his committee's recommendation for a 
single UK deep repository would be complicated by regions 
refusing to take each other's waste.

His comments raise the fears English politicians may demand the 
devolved administrations in Cardiff and Edinburgh make their own 
waste disposal arrangements.

A political stand-off between England, Wales and Scotland could 
add tens of billions of pounds to the bill for disposing of 
waste.



icNorthWalesTM is a trade mark of Trinity Mirror Plc.
*****************************************************************
 29 The Engineer Online: Waste solution

Published: 02 August 2006  09:30 AM

Source: The Engineer Online With the disposal of nuclear waste
high on the political agenda, a group of physicists claims to
have discovered a technique that could make it harmless on
timescales of just a few tens of years. 

Professor Claus Rolfs, leader of the group at in Bochum,
Germany, said his proposed method would mean that nuclear waste
would not have to be buried deep underground. 

The nuclear waste would be embedded in a metal and cooled to
ultra-low temperatures. This speeds up the rate of decay of the
radioactive material potentially cutting its half life by a
factor of 100 or more. 

Professor Rolfs said, ‘We are currently investigating
radium-226, a hazardous component of spent nuclear fuel with a
half-life of 1600 years. I calculate that using this technique
could reduce the half-life to 100 years. At best, I have
calculated that it could be reduced to as little as two
years.‘ 

Rolf noticed that more nuclear fusion reactions happened in a
particle collider experiment if the atomic nuclei were encased
in metal and cooled. Rolfs believes that if cooling nuclei in
metal enhances fusion, it could enhance the opposite reaction,
namely speeding up the rate at which radioactive particles
decay. 

According to Rolfs, the lower temperature of the metal means
that free electrons can get closer to the radioactive nuclei.
These electrons accelerate positively charged particles towards
the nuclei, increasing the probability of fusion reactions, or
in the opposite case, accelerate particles that are being
ejected from the nucleus. 

 Copyright Centaur Media PLC. All rights reserved. 
*****************************************************************
 30 AU ABC: NLC, Govt split on nuclear dump plans

ABC Northern Territory | Local News | Story 
 Wednesday, 2 August 2006. 15:00 (AEDT)Wednesday, 2 August 2006.

 The Northern Territory Government says its relationship with
the Northern Land Council (NLC) has deteriorated since the NLC
backed a plan for a nuclear waste dump on Muckaty Station. 

The station lies 120 kilometres north of Tennant Creek. 

Chief Minister Clare Martin supports federal Labor leader Kim
Beazley's decision to drop the ALP's three mines policy. 

But she remains opposed to a nuclear waste dump in the Northern
Territory. 

Ms Martin says she has not spoken to the NLC but she is
extremely disappointed with its decision to approach the Federal
Government directly. 

"The NLC has continued to act independently and certainly when
they found Muckaty Station and worked with traditional owners to
... put a proposal to the Federal Government to establish a
nuclear waste facility there they certainly didn't come to us
and talk about it," she said. 

*****************************************************************
 31 [NYTr] Hiroshima, Nagasaki and N.Dakota: USA's WMDs
 
Date: Wed, 2 Aug 2006 15:50:57 -0500 (CDT)

X-Sender-Host-Name: chumbly.math.missouri.edu
X-Spam-Class: HAM-VERY

Via NY Transfer News Collective  *  All the News that Doesn't Fit
 
CounterPunch - Aug 2, 2006
http://www.counterpunch.org/quigley08022006.html

Hiroshima, Nagasaki and North Dakota

WMDs Discovered Here

By BILL QUIGLEY

On August 6, 1945 the United States dropped an atomic bomb on Hiroshima.
Three days later, the US dropped another atomic bomb on Nagasaki. These
nuclear weapons killed over 100,000 people, almost all civilians, and
injured many tens of thousands more.

Fr. Carl Kabat, 72, Greg Boertje-Obed, 51, and Michael Walli, 57, sit in
jail in North Dakota awaiting a federal criminal trial because of weapons
of mass destruction and because of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. I visited them
last week.

Their crime? They tried to disarm one of the 1700+ nuclear weapons in North
Dakota. On June 26, 2006, they went to the silo of a Minuteman III
first-strike nucclear missile and wrote on it "If you want peace, work for
justice. Then they hammered on its lock and poured some of their own blood
over it. They waited to be arrested and have been in jail ever since. If
convicted, they face imprisonment of up to ten years for criminal damage to
federal property.

The Minuteman III is a first-strike intercontinental nuclear missile with a
range of over 6000 miles and carries 27 times the destructive power of the
bomb dropped on Hiroshima. There are over one hundred fifty Minuteman III
missiles planted in the grounds in silos in just the northern part of North
Dakota.

Fr. Kabat has been a Catholic priest for over forty years. Greg
Boertje-Obed was a First Lieutenant in the US Army. Mike Walli served two
tours in Vietnam. All three men were born in small towns or rural areas of
the Midwest. Walli and Boertje-Obed are members of the Loaves and Fishes
Catholic Worker community in Duluth, Minnesota. Together they are called
the "Weapons of Mass Destruction Here Plowshares. The Plowshares movement
seeks to follow the instructions of Isaiah (2:4) and Micah (4:3) to "beat
your swords into plowshares.

At the time of their arrest, the three specifically linked their actions to
Hiroshima and Nagasaki. "Two of the most terrible war crimes occurred on
August 6th and 9th, 1945. On August 6th, 1945, the United States dropped an
atomic bomb on the city of Hiroshima, Japan, killing more than 100,000
people (including U.S. prisoners of war). Three days later the U.S. dropped
an atomic bomb on the city of Nagasaki, Japan, killing more than 50,000
people. Use of these weapons of mass destruction on civilian populations
were abominable crimes against humanity.

They went on to say "U.S. leaders speak about the dangers of other nations
acquiring nuclear weapons, but they fail to act in accordance with the
Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty which commits the U.S. to take steps to
disarm its weapons of mass destruction. We act in order to bring attention
to people's responsibility for disarming weapons of state terrorism. We can
begin the process of exposing U.S. weapons of mass destruction, naming them
as abominations that cause desolation, and transforming them to objects
that promote life.

Mike Walli enlisted in the army as a young man. With the experience of two
tours in Vietnam, he said "This is not about our national defense. The
hundreds of Minuteman III nuclear weapons are offensive weapons of mass
destruction. Martin Luther King, Jr. preached that the United States is the
chief purveyor of violence in the world. We must become a people-oriented
society rather than a thing-oriented society. We must kick the war economy
habit.

Greg Boertje-Obed, who, after his time as an officer in the military,
married and is the father of an eleven year old daughter, told me "There is
a sense of righteousness and harmony that comes from being in jail on
August 6. When I was in the military, I was trained to fight and "win a
nuclear war. It became clear that all the preparations for a nuclear war
were wrong. In contrast Jesus taught "Love your enemiesdon,t fear those who
can kill the body those who live by the sword will die by the sword. Now is
the time to turn away from the ways of violence. Treat others the way we
want to be treated. Now is the time to take steps to help the starving,
ill, orphaned, weak, war-oppressed, and down-trodden all over the world. It
is time to turn away from the bomb and the possibility of ending all life
on our planet and to end the nuclear nightmare.

Fr. Carl Kabat spent several years in the Philippines and Brazil. "August
6th and August 9th are appropriate times to be in jail, he reflected. "We
are here to witness against the insanity of nuclear weapons. When these
bombs were dropped on the Japanese I was too young to realize what had
happened. Those bombings were war crimes that we, even today, do not
acknowledge. The indiscriminate killing of children, women, old people and
everyone else certainly cannot be accepted under any just theory of war.
Perhaps the fact that we are in jail can help us as a nation remember the
criminality of those days in the past. None of us can make up for the
killings in the past, but there is a possibility that our being in jail
during this time might help stop such insanity from being repeated in the
future.

North Dakota is home to more nuclear weapons than any other of the 50
states. The Bureau of Atomic Scientists estimated that the state contained
more than 1700 nuclear warheads, not counting the ones planted in concrete
silos in the ground.

A friendly cab driver in Bismarck told me "If North Dakota seceded from the
Union, we would be the world,s third most-powerful nuclear state.

The Weapons of Mass Destruction Here Plowshares hope their actions will
invite the people of North Dakota, and the rest of the US, to do something
about our nation,s nuclear weapons of mass destruction in light of many
issues of justice, including the deaths of tens of thousands of civilians
in Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

[Bill Quigley is a human rights lawyer and professor of law at Loyola
University New Orleans. Bill is a legal advisor with the Weapons of Mass
Destruction Here Plowshares. He can be reached at: duprestars @yahoo.com

You can write Fr. Carl Kabat, Greg Boertje-Obed, or Mike Walli c/o
Southwest Multi-County Correctional Center, 66 Museum Drive, Dickinson, ND
58601.

You can find out more about the Weapons of Mass Destruction Here Plowshares
at: http://www.jonahhouse.org

You can contact their community c/o Loaves and Fishes Catholic Worker
Community at 218.728.0629. ]
       
                                *
================================================================
.NY Transfer News Collective    *    A Service of Blythe Systems
.          Since 1985 - Information for the Rest of Us         .
.339 Lafayette St., New York, NY 10012     http://www.blythe.org
.List Archives:   https://olm.blythe-systems.com/pipermail/nytr/
.Subscribe: https://olm.blythe-systems.com/mailman/listinfo/nytr
================================================================
*****************************************************************
 32 Tri-City Herald: Fluor Hanford manager to get big thanks 

Published Wednesday, August 2nd, 2006 

By Mary Hopkin, Herald staff writer 

In a decade, John Umbarger has given more to the Tri-Cities than 
many people do in a lifetime. 

He created the Crystal Apple Award. 

He's collected used instruments to outfit the area's budding 
musicians. 

He's served on the boards of numerous community nonprofit 
organizations such as the Mid-Columbia Education Alliance. 

He's even dressed in a tutu to promote Junior Achievement. 

And on Thursday, he'll receive a big thank you. 

Umbarger, Fluor Hanford's manager of community programs, will be
presented with the Leadership Tri-Cities 2006 Sam Volpentest
Leadership Award. The public awards ceremony will be at 6 p.m.
at the Stone Ridge Events Center, 5960 Burden Boulevard in
Pasco. 

Connie Eckard, past president of Leadership Tri-Cities' alumni
association, said the award is meant to recognize individuals
who have a history of making positive contributions to the
community. Umbarger's job allows him to work with businesses and
organizations throughout the area, but he spends hundreds of
additional hours beyond that volunteering in the community. 

Umbarger, who has a doctorate in nuclear physics, spent 26 years
at Los Alamos National Laboratory in New Mexico. He retired Jan.
30, 1997, from Los Alamos and three days later joined Fluor
Hanford as deputy director of its Office of Economic Transition. 

Later Umbarger, who lives in Burbank with his wife Kathryn, was
named manager of community programs, responsible for educational
outreach, student intern programs and other programs. 

Debra Bowen, Junior Achievement's executive director, said
Umbarger began helping students in the Benton-Franklin Juvenile
Justice Center to finish their high school diplomas several
years ago. 

"Even with his unusual exuberance, he quickly learned that
Junior Achievement's traditional eight-week course didn't break
the ice with these special students," she said. "He spent the
entire year with the students -- mentoring, supporting and
believing in them." 

Bowen said in the end, 14 of the students earned their GEDs. 

Umbarger said he was stunned to learn he was the recipient of
the ninth Volpentest Leadership Award. 

"There are too many wonderful people in the Tri-Cities who
deserve it," he said. "Community is all about helping each
other. You do it because you have an obligation to. When you are
blessed with good health and riches, you share it with people,
and hopefully they do the same." 

� 2006 Tri-City Herald, Associated Press 
*****************************************************************
 33 Knox News: Heat puts TVA in a crunch

Agency limits power at 60 companies that do so in return for rate 
break

By REBECCA FERRAR, ferrarr@knews.com 
                                
August 2, 2006

With a record heat wave hitting the Southeast, key generating 
units out of service and purchased power in short supply, TVA is 
facing a crunch keeping the lights on and air conditioning 
running in the Tennessee Valley. 

TVA was interrupting the power of about 60 large industrial 
customers that agree to have their power curtailed during peak 
periods in exchange for a break on electricity rates. 

Also, TVA took steps to conserve electricity at all its 
installations and asked its 158 distributors, including KUB, to 
do the same. 

"It's record heat all across the eastern United States," TVA 
spokesman John Moulton said. "There's not a lot of (purchased) 
power available to supplement the TVA system. It's a challenging 
situation, but as long as we maintain the rest of our generating 
supply and we're able to get our purchased power we've contracted 
for, we won't have to go into any other curtailments. We're doing 
all this to avoid any outages or any brownouts." 

Moulton said TVA does not anticipate any brownouts. 

"That's why we take these actions, so we'll have enough power to 
meet the demand," he said. 

Adding to the headaches are problems at key generating units,
including Watts Bar Nuclear Plant at Spring City, which went
down Monday afternoon. The main generator on the non-nuclear
side of the plant shut down, forcing the plant out of service. 

"It was operating at full power at the time," Moulton said. "It
had been on line for 36 days. It will be returned to power as
soon as we determine the cause and extent of the repairs." 

Watts Bar contributes about 1,165 megawatts of electricity to
the TVA system. One megawatt powers about 585 homes. 

This is the second time recently the Watts Bar plant has been
off line. On May 30, it was shut down when a reactor turbine
began vibrating and it took 25 days to repair. 

TVA has about 300 large industrial customers across the valley
who buy electricity with the understanding it might be curtailed
during peak power times in exchange for discounted rates. Some
require four hours notice, some 24 hours notice and some a
week's notice. 

Moulton said TVA expects to save about 600 megawatts by
curtailing the industrial customers' power. 

TVA predicted it would take 31,235 megawatts to meet Tuesday's
power demand across the valley. The all-time record for demand
was set on July 18 with 32,037 megawatts. 

As far as purchasing power, TVA has contracts with some
suppliers to purchase electricity during peak periods. 

"The problem is there's not a lot of power available on the
market," Moulton said. "It is expensive when there's not much
supply. It's just not available because other utilities and
power suppliers are having the same problem TVA is having." 

At KUB, employees were heeding TVA's call to conserve by
reducing lighting, turning off all equipment that is not in use
and postponing using electrical appliances in break rooms, KUB
spokeswoman Jennifer Fern said. 

TVA is the nation's largest public utility, serving 8.6 million
customers in seven southeastern states. 

Business writer Rebecca Ferrar may be reached at 865-342-6357.

� 2006 - Knoxville News Sentinel
*****************************************************************
 34 CH2M HILL: CH2M HILL Mound Announces Physical Completion of the Contract 
Scope at the Mound Site 

MIAMISBURG, Ohio, Aug. 1 /PRNewswire/ -- CH2M HILL Mound, Inc.,
per the terms of its contract with the U.S. Department of Energy
(DOE), has successfully completed the physical work associated
with the first phase of cleanup at the Mound Site. 

The Mound site located in Miamisburg, Ohio, approximately 10
miles southwest of Dayton is located on a 306-acre site.
Construction of the facility began in 1946 and the plant began
operation in 1949. Much of the work at Mound during the Cold War
involved production of polonium-beryllium initiators used in
early atomic weapons. In the 1950's the facility began the
manufacture of a variety of nuclear weapons parts. Work at Mound
evolved to include isotope separation, fossil fuels research,
tritium recovery for reuse in weapons, development of atomic
generators used to provide electrical power for space
exploration and other non-nuclear research and development
activities. The production of weapons components were stopped in
1995 at the site. 

Today's announcement represents the accelerated, safe cleanup of
64 nuclear, radiological and industrial buildings, the
preparation of nine facilities for transfer to the Miamisburg
Mound Community Improvement Corporation (MMCIC), the remediation
and excavation of more than 10.1 million cubic feet of
contaminated soil and the removal of all above-ground utility
structures and the site restoration involving grading and
seeding. 

CH2M HILL Mound President Michael Ebben emphasized his
appreciation for DOE's leadership and management of the closure
contract. We have enjoyed the strong support of DOE throughout
the entire three and one half year process. 

"The safe accelerated cleanup of Mound is a tribute to the
tireless efforts of our dedicated and immensely talented
workforce," said Ebben. "This is the same workforce that helped
win the Cold War and then demonstrated great flexibility and
skill by transitioning to a nuclear decommissioning workforce.
These workers, in partnership with community leaders, elected
officials, regulators and many other committed individuals have
prepared the majority of the site for future reuse." 

  To complete its mission, CH2M HILL Mound employees:

  * Disposed of more than 10.1 million cubic feet of low-level
radioactive
    waste, more than double the volume anticipated when CH2M
HILL began its
    cleanup activities work on January 3, 2003
  * Demolished 64 nuclear and industrial buildings comprising
more than
    3 million square feet
  * Removed more than 240 production glove boxes that were
heavily
    contaminated from years of nuclear weapons component
production
    activities
  * Disposed of more than 9,300 cubic feet of transuranic waste
that was
    shipped to the Waste Isolation Pilot Plant in New Mexico
  * Prepared nine buildings and reconfigured nine utility
systems for
    transfer to the Miamisburg Mound Community Improvement
Corporation for
    economic development
 

The work was completed with significantly improved worker safety
performance, reducing the Total Recordable Case Rate from 5.5 at
the beginning of the contract to 2.86, dispelling arguments that
accelerated cleanup compromises safety. 

The Department of Energy will now review CH2M HILL's declaration
of physical completion. This process, required by the closure
contract, will proceed over the next several weeks. Final
acceptance of the work is the next step in the transition of the
site to the Miamisburg Mound Community Improvement Corporation. 

Headquartered in Denver, employee-owned CH2M HILL is a global
firm providing engineering, construction, operations, and
related technical services to public and private clients. With
more than $3.8 billion in revenue, CH2M HILL is an industry
leading program management, construction management for fee, and
design firm, as ranked by Engineering-News Record (2006). The
firm's work is concentrated in the areas of transportation,
water, energy, environment, communications, construction, and
industrial facilities. Recognized in 2006 as one of FORTUNE
magazine's "100 Best Companies to Work For" and a "Most Admired
Company," CH2M HILL has more than 18,000 employees in regional
offices worldwide. 

About Mound 

Mound is a Department of Energy-owned cleanup and closure site
operated by CH2M HILL Mound, Inc. under an accelerated closure
contract. The Mound mission included special nuclear material
management and shipment, nuclear deactivation and
decommissioning, waste management and shipment, environmental
cleanup and site restoration. The Department of Energy has
issued a Request for Proposal for the second and final phase of
the Mound cleanup -- the additional cleanup of a former waste
site referred to as OU-1. The cleanup of OU-1 is expected to be
complete by September 30, 2007.   

Copyright � 1996-2003 PR Newswire Association LLC. All Rights
Reserved. 
*****************************************************************
 35 Knox News: Munger: Another study concludes no harm from incinerator

By FRANK MUNGER, munger@knews.com 

August 2, 2006

The U.S. Department of Energy has extended the lifetime of its 
Oak Ridge incinerator on multiple occasions, citing the need to 
burn a backlog of toxic waste at DOE's nuclear sites around the 
United States. 

"We're not forecasting an end of the operation anymore," Steve
McCracken, DOE's environmental cleanup chief, said during a tour
of the site about seven months ago. The incinerator is expected
to stay in business through 2009 at least. 

The Oak Ridge facility is licensed to burn so-called mixed
wastes, those containing both radioactive materials and
hazardous chemicals, and it is particularly used to treat waste
materials containing polychlorinated biphenyls. 

As part of the continuing operations, the incinerator's
contractor - Shaw Environmental &Infrastructure Inc. - performed
a risk assessment to evaluate the potential for emissions
harming humans and the environment. 

"The risk assessment is part of the permitting process, and all
incinerators and boilers in Tennessee that burn hazardous waste
are required to have human health-risk assessments," said Tisha
Calabrese-Benton, a spokeswoman for the state Department of
Environment and Conservation. 

The report released earlier this spring concluded there were no
problems, essentially the same thing as previous risk studies
have shown. 

"Emissions are not expected to adversely affect sensitive or
other human populations in the vicinity of the TSCA
Incinerator," the report said. The summary also said burning
waste at the Oak Ridge site - on the east end of the East
Tennessee Technology Park - is not likely to degrade food
sources for animal life in the area. 

Asked if there were any concerns about the health study being
done by the same company that operates the incinerator,
Calabrese-Benton replied, "That is standard practice for the
contractor to provide that study and also an important
responsibility for the contractor. It is done with significant
oversight by the state." 

The report said conservative assumptions were used in the risk
calculations, such as emissions that were higher than the actual
airborne releases of hazardous materials. 

These conclusions, however, are not likely to sway the opinions
of people who have believed for many years, dating back to the
initial test burns in the late 1980s, that the Oak Ridge
incinerator is a cause of health problems among workers and
nearby residents. 

n 

Just when you think things are wacky in the DOE contract world,
they become more so. 

Federal officials recently indicated that the long-overdue award
of a new contract for information services was at hand, but it
has been delayed - again. The Oak Ridge office issued the 20th
amendment to the procurement process, extending the period of
"offer and award" to 603 days. Some folks think this may be
approaching a record for tardy contracting. 

Interested companies originally submitted their proposals Jan.
5, 2005. The contract award is now set for Aug. 31, according to
the contract Web site, but that doesn't appear firm, either. 

DOE spokesman John Shewairy, who's probably weary of responding
to the contract delays, offered this explanation by e-mail: 

"I think everyone involved in the process for major procurements
hopes that matters move quickly. We do have the ability to
select based on the initial proposals, but in this case we felt
that it was in the best interests of the department to hold
further discussions with those who offered proposals. That
certainly added time to the process, but it was the correct
approach for us to take. 

"I think I mentioned before that a procurement of the complexity
and size must be approved by DOE headquarters, specifically the
Office of Business Clearance. That, too, adds to the process,
and I have no way of estimating what length of time we're
talking." 

Senior writer Frank Munger covers the Department of Energy for
the News Sentinel. He may be reached at 865-342-6329 or at
munger@knews.com.
 					
� 2006 - Knoxville News Sentinel
*****************************************************************
 36 DOE: DOE to Invest $250 Million in New Bioenergy Centers
 
  August 2, 2006
 
Basic Genomics Research on the Development of Biofuels to be
Accelerated 

JOLIET, IL  U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) Secretary Samuel W.
Bodman announced today that DOE will spend $250 million to
establish and operate two new Bioenergy Research Centers to
accelerate basic research on the development of cellulosic
ethanol and other biofuels.  The Secretary made the announcement
with Congressman Jerry Weller (IL-11th), local officials and
biofuels stakeholders during a visit to Channahon, IL. 

This is an important step toward our goal of replacing 30
percent of transportation fuels with biofuels by 2030,
Secretary Bodman said.  The Energy Policy Act of 2005 (EPAct)
calls for the creation of new programs to improve the technology
and reduce the cost of biofuels production.  The mission of
these centers is to accelerate research that leads to
breakthroughs in basic science to make biofuels a cost-effective
alternative to fossil fuels. 

Four billion gallons of ethanol were produced this year, mainly
from corn.  EPAct requires that by 2012, at least 7.5 billion
gallons per year of renewable fuel be blended into the nations
fuel supply.  To meet these goals, future biofuels production
will require the use of more diverse feedstocks including
cellulosic material such as agricultural residues, grasses and
other inedible plants. 

Universities, national laboratories, nonprofit organizations and
private firms are eligible to compete for an award to establish
and operate a center.  Awards, based on evaluation by scientific
peer review, will be announced next summer.  The centers are
expected to begin work in 2008 and will be fully operational by
2009.  

The centers mission will be to conduct systems biology research
on microbes and plants, with the goal of harnessing natures own
powerful mechanisms for producing energy from sunlight.  A major
focus will be on understanding how to reengineer biological
processes for more efficient conversion of plant fiber, or
cellulose, into ethanol, a substitute for gasoline.  

The announcement of the Bioenergy Research Centers initiative
culminates a six-year-long effort by the DOE Office of Science
to lay the foundation for breakthroughs in systems biology for
the cost-effective production of renewable energy.  In early
July, DOEs Office of Science issued a joint biofuels research
agenda with the Departments Office of Energy Efficiency and
Renewable Energy titled Breaking the Biological Barriers to
Cellulosic Ethanol.  The report provides a detailed roadmap for
cellulosic ethanol research, identifying key roadblocks and
areas where scientific breakthroughs are needed. 

The proposal deadline for this funding opportunity is February
1, 2007.  DOEs Office of Science will provide $25 million in
the first year for the establishment of each center and up to
$25 million per year for the following four years to support the
operations of each center - for a total award of up to $125
million per center.  Additional details on the funding
opportunity and the centers objectives are available at:
http://www.doegenomestolife.org/centers. 

DOE began supporting pioneering research on microbes and
microbial communities in 2000, with the objective of tapping
microorganisms powerful and diverse capabilities to produce
renewable energy, clean up the environment and manage
atmospheric carbon.  This research has been supported by the
Genomics: GTL program in the Office of Science.  Since
initiating the Human Genome Project in 1986, DOE has played a
major role in advancing modern biotechnology, and the
departments recent research on microbes for energy production
builds on those advances. 

Todays announcement is part of a series of events highlighting
the first anniversary of the Energy Policy Act of 2005, which
President Bush signed on August 8, 2005.  A kickoff event was
held in Washington, D.C., with Secretary Bodman and two Chairmen
of Congressional Committees, Senator Pete Domenici and
Congressman Joe Barton.  Later today, Secretary Bodman will
travel to Cedar Rapids, Iowa, where he will visit the Clipper
Wind Manufacturing Facility and discuss the importance of wind
and other forms of renewable energy to our nations energy
security.  In addition to the production tax credits for
renewable energy, including wind, in the Energy Policy Act,
President Bushs Advanced Energy Initiative significantly
increases the governments investment in research and
development to bring more affordable renewable energy to market.
 The Advanced Energy Initiative proposes a 13 percent increase
in wind research and development in DOE, to a total of $44
million. 

DOEs Office of Science is the single largest supporter of basic
research in the physical sciences in the nation and helps ensure
U.S. world leadership across a broad range of scientific
disciplines.  The Office of Science supports a diverse portfolio
of research at more than 300 colleges and universities
nationwide, manages 10 world-class national laboratories with
unmatched capabilities for solving complex interdisciplinary
scientific problems, and builds and operates the worlds finest
suite of scientific facilities and instruments used annually by
more than 19,000 researchers to extend the frontiers of all
areas of science. 

Media contact(s): Craig Stevens, (202) 586-4940 Jeff Sherwood, 
(202) 586-5806     [ ]   

  U.S. Department of Energy | 1000 Independence Ave., SW | 
Washington, DC 20585 1-800-dial-DOE | f/202-586-4403 | e/General 
*****************************************************************
 37 DOE: Energy Secretary Highlights One-Year Anniversary of the 
Energy Policy Act of 2005 at Iowa Wind Turbine Facility
 
  August 2, 2006
 
CEDAR RAPIDS, IOWA  U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) Secretary
Samuel W. Bodman today visited a wind turbine manufacturer to
reinforce DOEs commitment to diversifying Americas sources of
renewable energy and to celebrate the anniversary of the passage
of the Energy Policy Act of 2005 (EPAct) - the first
comprehensive energy legislation signed into law in more than a
decade.  The site of the visit was Clipper Windpowers Liberty
Turbine production facility in Cedar Rapids, Iowa. 

Clippers Liberty Turbine is not only one of the most advanced
wind turbines ever produced, it may well be the most efficient
wind turbine in the world, Secretary Bodman said.  The
turbines produced here in Cedar Rapids are an indispensable part
of our strategy for the nations energy future, one that
envisions new developments in energy science and technology that
will point the way toward reliable and renewable energy
sources. 

The Department of Energy (DOE), in close partnership with
industry and other state agencies, is leading the nation's
efforts to improve wind energy technology so that it can
generate competitive electricity in areas with lower wind
resources.  DOEs goal is to reduce the cost of wind generated
electricity by 2012.  These turbines will be deployable in lower
wind speed regions that are generally much closer to major load
centers allowing the economic use of wind turbines over a
geographic area 20 times larger than the previous generation of
turbines. 

The promise of wind energy is immense; however, reaping the full
benefits from this technology rests heavily on sustaining
aggressive research, development, and support programs.  In his
most recent State of the Union address, President Bush outlined
the Advanced Energy Initiative to help break America's
dependence on foreign sources of energy.  The Presidents 2007
Budget includes $44 million for wind energy research  a $5
million increase over FY06 levels.  Combined with ongoing
efforts to expand access to Federal lands for wind energy
development, this new funding will help dramatically increase
the use of wind energy in the United States. 

Todays trip to Iowa is part of a series of events highlighting
the first anniversary of the Energy Policy Act of 2005, which
President Bush signed on August 8, 2005.  A kick-off event was
held in Washington, D.C., with Secretary Bodman and two Chairmen
of Congressional Committees, Senator Pete Domenici and
Congressman Joe Barton.  

Earlier today, Secretary Bodman traveled to Joliet, Illinois,
where he announced $250 million for two new bioenergy centers. 
The bioenergy centers will accelerate basic research on the
development of cellulosic ethanol and other biofuels, which will
help us reduce our reliance on foreign sources of energy. 
Universities, national laboratories, nonprofit organizations and
private firms are eligible to compete for an award to establish
and operate a center.  The centers are expected to begin work in
2008 and be fully operational by 2009. 

Along with the continued work in wind energy, DOE will issue
guidelines for loan guarantees that will facilitate private
efforts, bringing the most promising clean energy technologies
to market.  And the Department will outline a new risk insurance
program to guard against bureaucratic hurdles in getting new
nuclear power plants up and running.  DOE will also release a
report identifying the most critical areas of electricity
transmission congestion. 

Media contact(s): Craig Stevens, (202) 586-4940     [ ]   

  U.S. Department of Energy | 1000 Independence Ave., SW | 
Washington, DC 20585 1-800-dial-DOE | f/202-586-4403 | e/General 
    
*****************************************************************

NOTE: In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. section 107 this 
material is distributed without profit or payment to those who 
have expressed a prior interest in receiving this information for 
non-profit research and educational purposes only. For more 
information go to: 
<http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml> 
    
*****************************************************************